Gitmo Soldier Details Sexual Tactics



If this report, based on an unpublished manuscript by Sergeant Erik R. Saar, is accurate, I find it very disturbing. Such interrogation tactics, clearly designed as a form of psychological intimidation targeted at Muslim males, may not fit the legal definition of torture, but I believe it is inappropriate. Others may believe that the seriousness of the situation makes such tactics necessary.

To be debated: Can the use of sexual intimidation be justified as a form of interrogation in the War on Terror?

I add one sobering reminder not directly related to the question at hand:

These methods are clearly justified, there really is no room for debate.

If these thugs can be lured into talking with a little booty-call, then what's the problem? Personally, I think its a bit too rewarding for them, but whatever works. And I mean whatever.

I firmly believe that we are not dealing with POWs. These are terrorists and have absolutely no standing or protection from rules, treaties or conventions that they are not a party to in the first place.

If it were up to me there would be no limits whatsoever on methods used to get information from them.

I guess the answer depends on whether it is possible to get important information through interrogation at all that will help us fight terrorists. If we can get helpful information-- this type of interrogation is better than torture.

To be debated: Can the use of sexual intimidation be justified as a form of interrogation in the War on Terror?

By my understanding of the law, this 'sexual intimidation' is in fact a form of torture so I can't see how it can be justified at all.

I don't accept the notion that 'ends justify means' because frankly, thats no consolation when innocent people are sexually and/ or physically abused or tortured on the basis that they might know something.

Also, it is this 'ends justifying means' mentality that gives people like terrorists the justification they require to perform the acts of terrorism that we claim to be fighting against.

If we, in turn descend to the use of violating the very principles we say we stand for, then we are not fighting a war on terror, but rather a war with terror.

Those people at Guantanomo may be terrorists. They may have murdered people, but the fundamental principle of law states clearly that we as human beings are innocent until proven guilty. If this principle is no longer valid, then just what exactly is it we are fighting for?

Freedom? Freedom for whom? Freedom from what?

Moif wrote:




Moif-- a question. If interrogation by means of the sexual intimidation described in the original thread could produce information that could lead us to discover more about the terrorists (and their plans/organization) that attacked our country on 9/11-- would you still be against using it?

I wouldn't. I would take a pragmatic approach. I couldn't justify banning some female interrogater from using her mini skirt and thong underwear in her interrogation techniques-- if such an approach could potentially save lives. That is absurd. The problem is that nothing is black and white, cut and dry. The terrorists don't play by the rules -- a strange concept in any case when speaking of "war". We must weigh the two "evils" if you will. Banning Mini skirts and thong underwear as a techniqe to get info vs. getting relevant info. Sorry, the answer is pretty clear in the real world.

Again, my answer is premised on the assumption that useful info could be extracted. If so, I think you are morally wrong to take a different position.

The part about the menstrual blood...seems a little over the top and perhaps fallacious.

But the rest doesnt really sound like torture to me. Women wearing skimpy outfits and making sexual advances? Oh yea that's torture. I mean if that is the case...where do i sing up?

But in all seriousness, i had a sense this subject would come up after viewing recent news. This just brings us right back to the original debate about "torture" and its definition in regards to the war on terror. The problem is...there is no practical definition. The Geneva Convention was signed in 1929...quite a wile ago. I think that the US and maybe with the international communtiy must convene some sort of summit in order to discuss terror. Perhaps a new treaty of some sorts that sets guidelines and rules.

I am not for torture. Ritual beatings, electrocution, blunt objects...all unacceptable. We are better than that. However, sexual intimidation, sleep deprivation, and other more common interrogation methods should be allowed. People criticize the US for all forms of "torture" yet offer no solution as to how to interrogate terrorists. ZERO SOLUTION.

We are talking about people who are willing to blow themselves up. How can you negotiate with someone who cares nothing for their own well-being? HOW? I want to see people stop criticizing unless they can tell me how they would do it with these fanatics. The terrorists are not going to just give us a treasure trove of information on a whim.

In an idealistic world, none of this would be necessary. But we were attacked on 9/11. For 20 somewhat years we ignored Al Queda. Embassy bombings, kidnappings, USS Cole, 1st World Trade Center Bombing...Reagan, Bush Sr. Clinton, and in Bush's first 8 months...WE DID NOTHING. We allowed them to develop and attack us without retribution. We fostered their existence. We were in a war without even realizing it. It is time for this to end.



Absolutely. I wish some people would attack the terrorists as vehemently for beheadings and civilian assassinations as they do for this "sexual intimidation."

To be debated: Can the use of sexual intimidation be justified as a form of interrogation in the War on Terror?

No. In my personal view, simply because it is completely ineffective. Use of such methods is indicative of desperation - or perhaps it was just amateur day at the circus.

I have stated before on this board my views regarding professional interrogation methodology; I won't go through all that again. But what it boils down to is that both at Gitmo, in Afghanistan, and in Iraq, we have far too few who really know what the hell they're doing. Those that we do have are getting burnt out, and although we are increasing the size of the field at a rapid pace, we are increasing numbers at such speed only by compressing and cutting training. So, at this time, an increase in numbers has yet to result in any increase in capabilities or effectiveness.

1. Because it seems over the top, you conclude it may be fallacious? I am hoping you have a bit more reasoning than that for such an idea.

2. I agree with your sign-me-up attitude. But of course, you and I are non-Muslim Americans. Such a technique being used against people for whom women displaying sexuality and showing any skin is one of the ultimate taboos, however... it's more the equivalent of interrogating fundamentalist Christians with overtly gay actions, or with Satanic methods. This method we are debating here was obviously chosen because of how ultimately and completely offensive it is to these people. To reason this out, we cannot use the same prism through which we ourselves view the world.



I am glad you are not for torture. Yet in your last sentence here, you commit a common fallacy that I have seen used by pro-Bush people over the last five years. It is possible to disagree (and be right) without having a workable solution in mind. Even if a person might not know what the best way to deal with a situation is, she can certainly still say (and know) that another proposed solution is wrong. It doesn't nullify the protest to not necessarily have a perfect solution in mind.



And here, you do it again.

1. We are actually not necessarily talking about people who are "willing to blow themselves up." We are talking, actually, about people who have not been charged with any crime. We are talking about people given no due process. Even if it is acceptable to use "harsh" interrogation methods to glean information from a known terrorist, how can they be acceptable for use on someone who is merely a suspect? Of course, this whole thing is so secretive, we don't even know how many of these people are suspects, let alone terrorists.

2. So if I don't have a better solution I shouldn't criticize? That's not a very substantial argument. We have a justice system in place in this country. While it is not perfect, it does a reasonable job of determining guilt and innocence - without using torture, let alone harsh interrogation techniques. However, if I propose such a method, you can always say, "that's a silly solution." You can dismiss that, and make the same claim again. "Don't criticize unless you have a workable solution," you might say. What you really mean is, don't criticize unless you have a solution I agree with.



Of course, here your history is somewhat wrong. But it is a commonly enough repeated wrong, so I suppose I can't blame you for saying it. In fact, Clinton wanted to go after Bin Laden, but most of his proposals were too radical for the Republican congress of his second term. The truth is, while Clinton and his National Security team became fixated on Bin Laden (and they specifically told Bush's NSA that Bin Laden would be their biggest threat), the climate in Congress and in our country was not conducive to taking action about it. In fact, it took 9/11 for people to wake up. But it needs to be said that of all the presidents you mentioned, Clinton was the only one who even attempted to do anything about al Qaeda.



Why does it have to be either/or? Why do you assume that it is? Wrong is wrong, and I abhor it. Speaking up about one wrong doesn't mean you don't think something else is wrong, too. I am completely opposed to terrorist means. I am also completely opposed to subverting our own rule of law and our American ideals as a method of dealing with it. Two wrongs really don't make a right. I think it is disingenuous to characterize those of us who oppose actions like this as "appeasers" of terrorists. That's monochromatic thinking which only serves to further divide the people of this great planet.

I don't know. It just seems too crazy to believe. But if it is true, it is quite disturbing.



But do you equate this with torture? Obviously there are worse things that can happen to a man.



Let me clarify. You can criticize all you want. Go nuts. However, it is my opinion that the weight of your argument is lowered if you cannot tell me how to do it "right." Its sort of the "Fine, i'd like to see you do better" argument. How do we extract the sensitive information from terrorists? how do we do it? I mean if our interrogation techniques are wrong...what is right?



Good point, which is why i direct you to my original post where i say that we need new rules and guidelines to fight the war on terror. I agree with many that say Bush is waging a war without any restriction. That is because there ARE NO restrictions. We need a new treaty or convention or whatever that can let the free world know what is acceptable in the way of fighting terror. The Geneva Convention was signed in 1929 and does not deal with the complex issue we currently face.



That's a fair point...but yet i go back to a previous statement. It is not that there are other options i don't agree with being presented...its that NO SOLUTION is being presented whatsoever. I am all ears to hear about some suggestions of how to interrogate terrorists...but nobody does. Many would rather just discuss the roots of terrorism or how america's standing in the world would stop extremists. I want other options. I would rather not use any techniques on these inhumane monsters. I wish they would just tell us the information we need to know to save lives. But thats the difference between idealism and realism.





In April 1983, terrorists bombed the US embassy in Beirut. Six died and 1000 wounded in the First world trade center bombing. The Khobar towers bombing in '96 killed 19 Americans. In 1998, two US embassies were bombed in Africa leaving 12 Americans dead. The terrorist attack on the USS Cole left 17 American SAILORS dead.

The fact is that we did nothing. Now you may be right that Clinton wanted to get Bin Laden but public opinion prevented it...but thats the point. America did nothing. We allowed the threat to develop and become what it was pre-9/11. We can't do that anymore. I am not going to contrue your post as a Clinton-apologist..but he DID nothing. An attempt is not action. An attempt will not bring back those killed by Al Queda under his presidency. NONE of the presidents did what was necessary to protect this country and now we are paying the price.



Take it as you will. I mean this is a global war and it seems like we are the only ones fighting this. Terrorists were captured in France, Germany, and Italy this past week and finally some European nations are starting to realize this is not a war on the United States but on FREEDOM.

hayleyanne

Yes. Because it is illegal.


In the 'real world', if you use the same tactics as the terrorists then you are become as they are.

If your entire concept of law and order rests on so flimsy a foundation, that you are prepared to abandon it simply because some one attacked you then your law is nothing but a pretense.


No. With all due respect to your opinions, your answer is really based on the fact that you cannot imagine a better way to deal with a terrorist threat than to act in a similar fashion as the terrorists do.

In fact there are other, more sophisticated ways of extracting information from people. Most nations practice espionage and human intelligence, and the idea that information can only be acquired at the last moment by using illegal methods is ridiculous.

This is especially so with regards to the example given where the majority of people held at Guantanamo Bay are not privy to the secret plans of Osama Bin Laden, but are in fact simple grunt soldiers, or even civilians captured by US forces for a number of different reasons, (some good some bad) and subsequently labelled 'terrorists' in order to justify the illegal way in which they are treated.

Its rather telling that a good many men have been released after months, or even years at Guantanamo Bay, and upon return to their own national legal systems, aquitted of ANY wrong doing! link

I fail, utterly to see how the sexual abuse of an innocent man (or woman) can ever be of any use in a 'war against terror'.

All this really shows is how low even a democratic nation can go once its leadership has been allowed free reign from legal responsibility.

Its especially painful now, on the 60th anniversary of Aushwitz to see the USA acting with such a callous disregard for human rights. As if nothing was ever learned. As if human beings are still just cattle in the eyes of a silent majority, only fit for degradation, abuse and extermination.


lederuvdapac

So in other words, you'd like to be pawed by some large muscular man with the possibility of being raped in a squalid back room?

For, I can assure you that signing up for sexual abuse during an interrogation would not conform to your particular sexuality.


In fact the European nations, including Britain have foiled several large scale attacks, and arrested and CHARGED thousands of people in connection with terrorism. No less than five major attacks in main land Europe by al qaeda were prevented in the last twelve months.

Just because you didn't hear about them, doesn't mean to say that you are the 'only ones fighting'. It just means, you don't have a very good media in the USA. I suggest you try reading the [URL=Take it as you will. I mean this is a global war and it seems like we are the only ones fighting this. Terrorists were captured in France, Germany, and Italy this past week and finally some European nations are starting to realize this is not a war on the United States but on FREEDOM.]BBC[/URL]



editted for spelling and to add a link

To be debated: Can the use of sexual intimidation be justified as a form of interrogation in the War on Terror?

Perhaps it can - especially in time-critical situations. I haven't seen much detail on when it was alleged to have happened - if it was withing days of capture, maybe it would make some kind of sense within the internal logic of interrogating these people at all.

However, several factors lead me to be suspicious of the motives of those using such tactics.

Firstly, it seems to me like something that is deliberately being exploited because it isn't specifically prohibited so is seen as fair game, even though it clearly goes against the SPIRIT of the national and international laws against torture and general fair treatment.

And let us not forget, please - the people being held in GITMO are not "terrorists" or even "suspected terrorists" but are "enemy combatants" from the Afghanistan war. Many of them, perhaps misguidedly, went there in a spirit of Muslim solidarity against what they (however misguidedly) thought was Ameican agression against fellow Muslims.

In fact, I could quite reasonably assert that they are all innocent bystanders captured by mistake by US forces, and that would be at least as reasonable an assertion as one that states they are "terrorists" or "suspected terrorists", because nobody outside GITMO has been given any kind of access, no evidence has been presented in any kind of court, and no due process of law has been undertaken. NOT ONE PERSON HERE has the foggiest idea whether they are murderous scum on the side of Satan or sainted innocents and neither side has any evidence against any of the people there because, for the most part, we don't even know their names, let alone the specific circumstances under which they were captured. We only have the word of the US armed forces that they even ARE enemy combatants.

Secondly, it is a central principle of our Western way of life that we charge people with crimes before imprisoning them, and take reaonable steps to try them based on gathered evidence, and let them go free with no further stain on their character if the evidence does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty of the crimes they are charged with.

I do not and cannot subscribe to the view that in order to defend that way of life we must sacrifice one of its central principles. If it's a principle worth having, it's not one that's worth throwing away for short-term expediency. "We" are not superior to "them" because of anything intrinsic to us, but because of the principles we hold dear. If we sacrifice those principles in the name of defending them we not only become like our enemy, we defy all logical sense.

Thirdly, I find it next to impossible to believe that more than a handful of the 400+ GITMO captives are going to tell us anything they haven't already told us, so I cannot understand why they are still being held and (apparently) still being interrogated NEARLY FOUR YEARS after they can have been active members of any kind of organisation or plot that posed a threat to anyone's life or property. So why are we still holding the rest of the captives beyond the handful who really are dangerous or resistant to interrogation, even if we do accept that we must sacrifice the foundations of our civilisation in order to defend that civilisation?

Fourthly, let's say that some of the people in GITMO are dangerous and that some of them did crack and tell their captors information that has been useful in protecting the rest of us from unspecified terrorist attacks that were thwarted because of the intelligence gathered by rubbing women's underclothing on their faces.

Let's imagine all that is true for a moment - it isn't too hard. What is rather hard to accept is that all 400+ captives have been able to provide such intelligence. Many of them will have been Taliban. Now however hateful and barbaric the Taliban were, nobody has ever seriously claimed they were one and the same as al-Quaeda, or that they were in themselves an international terror organisation, or that threatened anyone much outside Afghanistan (and Pakistan, maybe).

If that's the case, captured Taliban are pretty unlikely to have said, or been able to say, anything remotely useful during their interrogation, whether or not it complied with the terms of international law, not to mention basic standards of fairness and decency.

Their crime was to side with and give haven to al-Quaeda. That is a fairly heinous crime in itself, in the light of 9-11. So why is the US so loath to charge and prosecute them in open court? If it secures convictions in fair trials, I could not really care less how the captives are treated within the boundaries of the law. Their guards can interpret their responsibilities as creatively as they want, ONCE THEIR CAPTIVES ARE CONVICTED PRISONERS GUILTY OF A SPECIFIC CRIME!!!

But, all in all, my concerns about the way the GITMO captives are being treated have little or nothing to do with what it says about the captives, and everything to do with what it says about the US military, the Bush administration, wider America, and the West in general.

At yesterday's 60th anniversary commemorations of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, Tony Blair said that the Holocaust started not with gas chambers, but with bricks through shop windows and shouted insults in the street. Wise words, I thought, (however much they might jar with the actions of his own government).

It's a great shame that we in the West now seem so willing to dance on the lines we ourselves drew to halt the long, shallow slide towards genocide all those years ago.

We're like a six year old - "I didn't steal it, I found it". "I only hit him because he hit me when you weren't looking". Everything we do must be okay because it's us doing it, and everything they do must be wrong because it's them doing it. NO. Some things are just wrong, no matter who does them. And we don't get to do wrong just because somebody else did it to us first.

Supposedly, though, the post 9-11 world is "different" and the old rules no longer apply. Increasingly, it seems to me that the only thing that is really different today is that now we in the US and UK are in the wrong in an uncomfortable number of ways. Two wrongs do not make a right. Terror attacks do not give us carte blanche to behave however we can blind our consciences to permit ourselves to behave.

One last point - Americans are by tradition healthily (and rightly) suspicious of their government when they try to keep secrets from them. Why is that suddenly okay when the magic words "national security" are invoked? By definition, nobody can tell if they are being secretive in the genuine interests of national security, or because they got some dirty laundry that they want to hide. Where is the healthy skepticism of government that is almost the defining characterisic of the American right when it comes to this subject? Why is the same government that is so wrong when it wants to interfere in free trade (by applying subsidies, say) suddenly so right when it is holding uncharged unconvicted foreigners indefinintely against their will?

I really despair of the justifications given for this kind of behaviour. It makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Can the use of sexual intimidation be justified as a form of interrogation in the War on Terror?

No. Using women to interrogate Muslim men is a ludicrous idea on its face. How bassackwards. These men have no respect or regard for women anyway, and probably the only thing going through their mind while all this stuff is going on is something like “all American women are cheap, filthy pig whores”, confirming and strengthening their belief in their “cause” against a godless, heathen country. And I don't know how the women involved can stand to look at themselves in the mirror after doing some of the things described.

It takes a great deal of training to become an effective interrogator. GI Joe can’t just go in and beat up on a person to make him tell what he knows, and GI Jane can’t go in and flash some skin and expect the same. Stupid, stupid, stupid!! Effective interrogation is a psychological art form that should not be left to untrained individuals. Interrogation is to torture what a scalpel is to a hatchet, what chess is to checkers.

Is it harder with a religious fanatic willing to die for his cause? Sure, but what’s the point of beating on someone who would rather die than give you information? And it’s painfully obvious that it hasn’t worked thus far.

Some of the more successful interrogation techniques include:

If a woman in a short skirt shaming a muslim accused of terrorism is illegal, show us the statute. If a woman in a short skirt shaming a muslim has anything to do with Aushwitz and "extermination" please enlighten us all.

Having seen Muslim immigrants in strip bars, I feel this technique is totally justified. Islam has done so much to oppress and dehumanize women in its glorious history that I really don't care if its supposed adherents are "terrorized" by a woman shaming them. Let CAIR come out and get self-righteous about this if they like. They and the other terror apologists are a a bunch of hyprocrites. According to the 9/11 report, even some of the 19 hijackers were in strip bars drinking as part of their cover story in the USA. I'm sure that they were suitably horrified by the very experience.

moif, you've mentioned that some of those released from Gitmo were innocent, so I thought I'd remind us all that some are also terrorists and the reason that they aren't being released in some cases is that they have no country and no allegiance beyond Al Qaeda. reuters reuters story

With all the crap that goes on in Gitmo, this is probably the least that anyone should be upset about..."No, please Mr. American soldier, I'll tell you anything...Just don't use the thong again!" Come on. Is this justified...I'm not sure, I would like to see what law, if any this is breaking before I make my decision. But good Lord folks, I feel worse for the "interrogators" who have to "torture" these people than I do for the poor souls who have to look at a woman's butt.
This is a non-sequitur, the atrocities committed at Aushwitz were far worse than forced arousal.

CP

The Reid Technique used to be the leading methodology taught to law enforcement; with state, local and FBI interrogation training all being fundamentally based on the method. However, that has changed significantly over the last few years. As is evident from even a cursory reading of the very simple description above, the Reid Technique essentially leads the source - by the interrogator focusing on speaking and shutting down the source during the initial stage of the interview, the interrogator feeds the source information and forces him to make a choice. Non-leading questions do not come into the scenario until after the interrogator has brought the source into agreement with a desired scenario. This has resulted in many false confessions from criminal suspects, thus leading to the LE search for alternative methods.

As far as the other methods you mentioned: Good cop bad cop is a classic - but it is also relatively crude and is only really effective with naive or poorly-trained sources. Pushing emotional buttons is dangerous - you are just as likely to have the source completely shut down as to get him talking. They are ineffective in and of themselves - they have to be applied very carefully within the context of effective questioning methodology. The same thing goes for manipulation of ego - up or down. It also requires sychronization with solid questioning methodology to be effective. Finally, I am not a big fan of incentives in interrogation. (They are very useful in developing source nets, but that's something completely different) Too often, a source will tell you what you want to hear, in order to get what he wants. In that situation, truth and fact don't matter - to the detriment of both the collection effort and the mission. And anything that has potential negative effects upon the mission means that lives may hang in the balance.

Cognitive Interview methodology is what is now being taught to many in the LE and Intelligence communities - elements of this method have been a part of military interrogation training for nearly two decades, but not the comprehensive methodology. Cognitive interviewing is based upon the science of memory. In essence, it is a guided retrieval of information from the source's head using the source's own words to bring out the rest of the story. In its more positive aspect, it has been found to be an excellent method of conducting victim/witness interviews, cutting out many of the factual problems that used to occur in such situations. In the context of a hostile interrogation, it is just as effective - but is applied in a fashion that demands much more of the interrogator as regards background information on the source and information regarding the context of their detention - not to mention complete kinesic and cognitive situational awareness during the interrogation.

The usual excuse given for torture and ill-treatment of sources is time-sensitivity. Interrogation of any hostile source is not like SIGINT intercept of hostile communications - you rarely gain critical intel immediately. (Although a modified form of cognitive methodology combined with simple direct questioning works surprising well during such time-sensitive events as screening of individuals during cordon-and-search ops or checkpoint ops) Effective interrogation takes time, hard work and patience. But with detainees at theater-level holding facilities and at Gitmo, the interrogators have all the time in the world. At Gitmo they've had years. There is no excuse for amateurish, illegal methodology that ultimately damages the reputation of the US around the world while acheiving no results.

lederuvdapac, if there's one thing Europe doesn't need from the U.S. it's advice about how to fight terrorists. They've been dealing with terrorists for decades.

* Attack on the Munich Airport, February 10, 1970: Three terrorists attacked El Al passengers in a bus at the Munich Airport with guns and grenades. One passenger was killed and 11 were injured. All three terrorists were captured by airport police. The Action Organization for the Liberation of Palestine and the Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine claimed responsibility for the attack.

* Munich Olympic Massacre, September 5, 1972: Eight Palestinian "Black September" terrorists seized eleven Israeli athletes in the Olympic Village in Munich, West Germany. In a bungled rescue attempt by West German authorities, nine of the hostages and five terrorists were killed.

* Attack and Hijacking at the Rome Airport, December 17, 1973: Five terrorists pulled weapons from their luggage in the terminal lounge at the Rome airport, killing two persons. They then attacked a Pan American 707 bound for Beirut and Tehran, destroying it with incendiary grenades and killing 29 persons, including 4 senior Moroccan officials and 14 American employees of ARAMCO. They then herded 5 Italian hostages into a Lufthansa airliner and killed an Italian customs agent as he tried to escape, after which they forced the pilot to fly to Beirut. After Lebanese authorities refused to let the plane land, it landed in Athens, where the terrorists demanded the release of 2 Arab terrorists. In order to make Greek authorities comply with their demands, the terrorists killed a hostage and threw his body onto the tarmac. The plane then flew to Damascus, where it stopped for two hours to obtain fuel and food. It then flew to Kuwait, where the terrorists released their hostages in return for passage to an unknown destination. The Palestine Liberation Organization disavowed the attack, and no group claimed responsibility for it.

*Restaurant Bombing in Spain, April 12, 1984: Eighteen U.S. servicemen were killed and 83 people were injured in a bomb attack on a restaurant near a U.S. Air Force Base in Torrejon, Spain.

* Airport Attacks in Rome and Vienna, December 27, 1985: Four gunmen belonging to the Abu Nidal Organization attacked the El Al and Trans World Airlines ticket counters at Rome’s Leonardo da Vinci Airport with grenades and automatic rifles. Thirteen persons were killed and 75 were wounded before Italian police and Israeli security guards killed three of the gunmen and captured the fourth. Three more Abu Nidal gunmen attacked the El Al ticket counter at Vienna’s Schwechat Airport, killing three persons and wounding 30. Austrian police killed one of the gunmen and captured the others.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm

Don't kid yourself that the world woke up on September 11, 2001 and suddenly discovered there were lunatics that would go to any ends to obtain their objectives. Terrorism has been with us and continues to flourish across the planet. Few nations have not been scarred by it. America hardly has the market cornered in fighting it.



Moif, I think you're a principled person and normally I would applaud it, but I'm sorry. Here, we part company. While I find the sexual intimidation methods of extracting information stupid, pointlessly crude and probably ineffective, they pale in comparison to going to work on someone with a pair of pliers, electrodes and duct tape.

I don't like the idea that torture--physical or psychological--is a tactic the United States should have anything to do with. In the process of fighting monsters one should avoid becoming a monster himself to paraphrase Nietzsche. Julian rightly is outraged at the open-ended incarcerations going on at Gitmo and it bothers me too. At some point these suspects should face trial or be released. Indefinite internment without facing a trial is Kafkaquese in its insane cruelty.

No one wants to take it easy on terrorists, but sadism in the name of national security is perverse.

carlitoswhey

I assumed all forms of sexual abuse were illegal in the USA.. but of course, I'd forgotten that Guantanomo bay isn't in the USA is it!

Silly me.


What does their religion have to do with anything? Does the fact that they're muslims mean that its okay to sexually abuse them?

How about christians? What method of sexual abuse would you favour to learn any secrets they may, or may not have?


And how is that the responsibility of every single Muslim?

Are you responsible for the countless deaths of Native Americans that founded the USA?
How about slavery? Are you responsible for the millions of Africans who were slaughtered to found the wealth of your fledging nation?

Why do you accuse Muslims of crimes they had no part in?


So what?


The link doesn't work.

And even if it did, how do you know that this fellow didn't become a terrorist as a result of what he experienced at Guantanamo Bay?

If I'd been treated like that, I don't think I would think to kindly to the people who put me there!


ConservPat

And just how do you suppose Auschwitz began? Where do you think that hate came from?

Do you really think that one day the Germans all suddenly decided to kill 6 million Jews and other untermenneshe?

No!. It started when the people of Germany approved as Jews and other untermenneshe were denied the rights of human beings. It started when people said nothing.




nighttimer

I'm curious... At what point does 'pale' sexual abuse become intolerable? When it moves from suggestion to verbal threat? or from verbal threat to physical threat? or from physical threat to penetration, mutilation or execution?

At what point do you draw the line?

'Oh, it was okay to rape this Arab because there was a risk that he might have known about a possible terrorist attack against Americans'



The bottom line is, if you have resort to sexually abusing people to find out what they know. Then I'm afraid you've already lost this war.

Come on Moif, you weren't comparing these frat house initiation week-esque tactics with the lead up to Auschwitz, but Auschwitz itself.

First of all, I still haven't seen any document that specifically says that this type of "torture" is illegal. Second, do you actually think that the US government is going to jump from strip-club torture to Arab death camps? If you don't, what is the purpose of this comparison?

CP

I don't think I expressed myself as clearly as I should have, Moif. I don't believe you have to become a monster to fight monster. I don't believe state-sanctioned torture is acceptable. I don't support or excuse the ill treatment of prisoners at Abu Gharib or Guantanomo Bay.

I believe that America should obey international law, honor the Geneva Convention and extract information vital to our national security in a way that is not cruel, sadistic, brutal or illegal.

BUT...

In the scenario of the "ticking time bomb" where it comes down to utilizing methods that would be considered "extreme" to obtain information that could avoid another 9/11 level event, would I authorize the usage of any and all means to obtain that information?

If I don't....sarin gas would be released in the New York City subway system or anthrax fed to children during their lunch in a South Central Los Angeles schoolhouse or early-morning risers in Columbus might mix into their coffee water that has been poisoned.

So yes, I would. In a heartbeat. The discomforting of a enemy would trouble my conscience far less than preserving the lives of hundreds or thousands of innocent people. I would rather endure the scorn of a few than have the deaths of many weighing down upon me.

I don't subscribe to the beliefs that terrorists have less rights than others because they are terrorists, but neither will I place their right not to be discomforted over the right of innocent people to simply live.

I wouldn't make as strong a connection between the Holocaust and what is happening to Muslim people as some, but I do see the point that Moif is making:



Once we start to treat a people without respect, we start down a very dangerous road; a road that has led to genocide, extinction and untold suffering.

That being said, such a future is a long way off, and easily preventable. The staggering insensitivity to devout-Muslims that people are expressing HERE demonstrates that such a process is starting to percolate through to the populace.

These are no more frat-boy antics than taking a devout jew, forcefully removing his hair and sideburns, tattooing him, and forebidding him from prayer... which is of course something that Nazis did do. It is meant to destroy the personal resolve of the person by making that person feel that if they die, they will be unfit to stand before god. I'm pretty damn secular, but I at least understand how horrifying that would be.

As to whether or not such tactics work... as I've said here and in countless threads elsewhere; if torture and coersion works, then why have these people been kept isolated and off-shore for three years? Does it not strike anyone as odd that for three years these people have been held without charge in legal limbo? Considering how poorly the government has been in dissuading Al Queda, one wonders just how much information they are getting. Then, we have to consider the fact that we have no way of knowing if these people are terrorists or not.

ConservPat

This is what I wrote:

and that is exactly what I meant.

60 years after the world learned the danger of national intolerance and to what that tolerance can lead, we are seeing a major democratic force on the same heading.

I'm not particularly surprised though. Both the USA and Israel have developed to the point where the Holocaust is paid lip service and the real lessons learned are casually ignored when they run counter to national interests.

In fact the broad public acceptance that using sexual abuse against innocent people, merely on the basis of their religious convictions is more or less what I've come to expect of the USA in the last four years.


Try it and see what happens... I'm sure you'll find that sexual harassment is illegal in any situation you care to experiment with.

The only difference between you molesting some girl in a dark alley and the US military molesting a detainee at Guantanamo is you'd be punished.


What I think is neither here nor there. My opinions are not the issue here.

What is the issue is the human rights being violated by US government officials and members of the US military against people who are innocent until proven guilty.

As for death camps, well, the USA doesn't need to have death camps. It can simply out source the job to its local allies. link link

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


nighttimer

In that extreme one-of-a-kind situation, then so would I, and then I would accept the responsibility in a court of law and plead guilty to any charges laid against me in the hope the court granted me clemency.

But do you really believe that the Afghan and Pakistani rabble dusted up and shipped to Guantanamo Bay are being sexually abused to prevent 'ticking bomb' threats?

Some how I doubt it. I find it far more likely that these people are abused simply on the basis of who they are, rather than what they know.


I wonder how many of the guards at Guantanomo are Muslims?

moif, I never said that sexual harassment wasn't illegal, I merely pointed out that this isn't exactly kristalnacht here, so your comparison is inappropriate. When you wrote about Aushwitz, I'm sure you weren't saying that gas chambers are illegal, sexual touching is illegal, therefore Gitmo is the same as gas chambers. And if anyone is treating human beings as cattle, I posit that it is those who see the killing of innocents as legitimate means to further their twisted goals, not the Americans who are fighting them.


Their religion has everything to do with it. Supposedly, this is the thing that makes a woman in a position of power, let alone sexuality, such a fearsome person that they may be disoriented enough to give information that is valuable.


No, I don't hold every single Muslim accountable for every abuse that they've committed over the years in the name of religion. However, I do find their current self-righteous indignation to be offensive. Organizations like CAIR and the arab press make it sound as if we've declared war against a religion. They further use their religion as a shield to de-legitimize our war on terrorism, by showing it to be some kind of anti-muslim crusade. Every piece of enforcement and logical anti-terror measure is met with cries of "anti-muslim!" from the community. This goes from requiring women photos on driving licenses to sensible profiling of travelers at airports, to interrogation methods at Gitmo. When Muslims as a community stop using their "religion of peace" as a defense against law-enforcement measures and start really condemning terror and respecting human rights, I will stop drawing obvious parallels and highlighing their collective hypocrisy.



So what. I really don't care if a woman in a short skirt shames a terrorist, when his brothers-in-arms were paying $10 a lap dance and drinking vodka tonics after getting out of flight school, that's so what.




There are many cases of terrorists being released from Gitmo and being found again on the battlefield against freedom. IUnless you are a complete, blind apologist for everything anti-america, you will come to the same conclusion that I have - they were guilty beforehand as well. There is no way that a guy like the one who kidnapped chinese workers and blew up hotels had the contacts and means to execute his plans upon getting out of jail if he were an innocent. Please.

Even with all of the above, UltimateJoe made some very good points. We are indeed on a dangerous path in using someone's religion against them, even if it is in what I would deem to be a harmless way. I firmly believe that the anti-Muslim bias in North America has not grown since 9/11, but has rather been somewhat of a media creation. There are still far more attacks against jews in the USA than there are against any kind of muslim. Moreover, I would challenge the Muslim community to more fervently come out against terror and the using of their religion to further its goals. But, having said all that, we certainly need to guard against becoming what we loathe, and dehumanizing and delegitimizing an entire religion all in the name of defending our country.

Devout Muslims? They aren't devout Muslims, they're terrorists, most of whom use religion as a mask for their homicidal, Anti-any other religion acts. I know probably a dozen Muslims, some of whom are in my family, and I'm fully aware what a devout Muslim looks like. Those in Gitmo [with a few, very unfortunate exceptions] are killers.

Again though UJ, if these people we are detaining in Cuba were just "devout Muslims", I'd completely, 100% agree with you...But they aren't, they're terrorists. So I appologize if I seem cold and uncaring, but frankly, no matter what religion, color, race, etc., if you are a terrorist, to me, the value of your life is less than that of an ordinary, caring person.


Okay, if that's what you meant, why even bother with the refference to Auschwitz?

Intolerance? The US government isn't just picking up John Q. Muslim on his way to the mosque, shoving him into a black car with tinted windows and shipping him to Gitmo. These people are suspected terrorists. And no matter how politically incorect I may be in saying this, I will anyway...So far the terrorist that has threatened America the most has been Arabic.

CP

Then I suppose you'd be glad to show us the proof that even one of the Guantanamo detainees are terrorists. I mean, these are obviously such clear-cut cases, it should be no problem. It's not like they're being held without charge, or that they were picked up in Afghanistan resisting an invasion, or anything. Nope, they're terrorists. I mean, they're Arab, they're Muslim... that speaks for itself, doesn't it?

Perhaps you were caught up in your condescension and smugness to pick this up UJ...I'm not stupid, I know that we imprison and probably torture innocent people. That's horrible, and embrassing. But I doubt that anyone thinks that most people who are in Gitmo, are there for no reason.

Spare me this descriminatory crap, would you. If you read what I said, and what I've said since I've joined up on AD, it would be painfully obvious to you that I'm not someone who thinks, oh, they're Muslim, arrest them...And if you do, I won't lose sleep over it.

CP

The presentation of this topic of debate really bothered me. I can understand the desire to further bring attention to the Guantanamo prisoners "status" but using this story to do so..well I think it does this cause a great disservice.

From what most have presented on here in regards to interrogation techniques I would say that this particular form of interrogation is ineffective and is not justifiable under the need to gain intelligence. Cruel...well the entire process of holding someone against their will and demanding they tell you something again against their will is cruel in the simplest form. Things just aren't always as simple.

I personally have been "interrogated" by police here in the US and scare tactics of one kind or another..lying..deceiving..intimidating..are used. Sexual intimidation is also employed here in the US when we send female cops out on the streets to pose as prostitutes..don't they too strut in miniskirts or possibly even thongs in hopes of getting the "bad guy" to respond in a certain manner? How does this differ?

I also agree that such tactics do not highlight our weakness in human understanding but instead the islamists. I feel their treatment, portrayal and beliefs on women in society is their weakness to bear not ours.

I feel presenting a story such as this and claiming it bears comparison to Auschwitz...or is in line with what occurred at Abu Ghraib or any other example of human rights abuse..not only shows prejudice but also downgrades the seriousness of such abuse. The complaint can easily be portrayed as trivial sniveling...something we should never try to depict true serious human rights issues as being. I feel you deny the true forms of human rights abuse the seriousness they demand.

carlitoswhey

When you write: then that is exactly what you are saying. By defining Islam as a whole you are targetting all muslims at once.

Islam as a whole is no different in its history than Christianity. There was once a period of history when Islam was a beacon of understanding and civililisation where as Christianity had driven Europe hundreds of years backwards into ignorance, superstition and the human sacrifice of women (as witches). We have no right to look down upon them, even if we don't approve of their religios belief's.


So what? I see the same thing happening when ever Jews feel slighted. Then its anti semitism, but really, whats the difference?


Has it ever occured to you that muslims do not have a 'community' any more than christians have a 'community'? that just perhaps there are millions of muslims who do not have a voice but who are ready and willing to embrace democracy and freedom if only they are given a chance?

I find your hostility towards muslims self evident that these organisations of which you speak are probably correct intheir analysis of American anti Islamic hostility.

And, let me just add, that I do not look upon Europe as any different in that regard. If anything its the same here.


Perhaps I'm not making myself clear here... there are NO terrorists in this equation!

The people held at Guantanamo have not been charged with anything. They are INNOCENT until proven guilty. They are not terrorists. They were snatched from half way around the planet, for obscure reasons that have never been explained, and thrown into a concentration camp where they are apparently tortured for information. If you can't see the similarity between the mistreatment and abuse in that set of facts, then its hardly any surprise that the lessons of Auschwitz have had no impact on contemporary American culture.


Sorry. No. I am not anti American and I do not agree with you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Conservpat

Because thats the ultimate destination of the road your country is standing on and like the majority of Germans in the 1930's you're deliberatly blinding yourself as to the location of where you are.


That is exactly what the US government has been doing. There have plenty of cases of men released from Gitmo after months and even years after it was found they had no connections to any terrorist, paramilitary or other fighting forces.

I remember one man, released after a year of beatings and torture, was a taxi driver who's competetion had grassed him up to the US forces as a Taliban official in order to get rid of his taxi company. By the time he got back to Afghanistan his company had been stripped bare, his family evicted and his home stolen by the very people who accused him.


Odd then that there are American troops in Arabic countries and yet they are the aggressive party...

Its amazing how much you can get away with when you fly the right flag I guess.

While you are right to point out my hyperbole regarding its history, Islam today as practiced by these extremists is completely different from Christianity. Moreover, the extremists are indeed mainstream in many places around the world, including Saudi-funded mosques in the US and Europe.

Christianity has undergone a reformation. Christian 'fundamentalists' do not want to return to the seventh century, destroy historic idols of other religions, issue fatwa's calling for the deaths of authors or other non-fundamentalists, etc. Christian priests don't call for the "death of Iran" or such hatred. Christian fundamentalists don't stab to death film directors who dare to question their religion's tenets (unlike Muslims in Holland) - indeed those films are likely to win Oscars in the USA. I won't deny Christianity's long history of oppression, but in the 21st century, there is a big difference. Those that ignore this difference are doomed to equalizing our Western morality with that of the terrorists.


I am not hostile in any way towards muslims. I am just not naive enough to pretend that all the people in the world are equally as likely to be terrorists as are young, muslim men. The arab apologist organizations in the USA and much of the media are content in pretending that Americans, nuns and 80-year-old caucasian women should be hassled at the airport to avoid "profiling," which is a separate topic but seems obviously flawed. CAIR is the most-often quoted organization sought by the American media when muslims are "profiled" and "oppressed" in the USA, and indeed it is nothing more than a terrorist apology group. Here are some tidbits - apologies for the biased source, but I'm in a hurry and it's the easiest to clip from.
"Truth about CAIR"

CAIR was founded in 1994 by alumni of an older group, the Islamic Association for Palestine. The IAP, founded by senior Hamas figure Mousa Mohammed Abu Marzook, calls for the destruction of Israel and the creation of an Islamic state under Islamic law in Israel's place. (In 1996, CAIR would condemn the U.S. government's decision to deport Marzook as an "anti-Islamic" act.)
.....
CAIR's first executive director, Nihad Awad, publicly declared himself a supporter of Hamas at a 1994 forum at Barry University in Florida. One of CAIR's original advisory board members, Siraj Wahhaj, served as a character witness for Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman. Rahman is the blind Egyptian cleric convicted in 1995 of conspiracy to bomb New York landmarks. CAIR described Rahman's conviction as a hate crime.
...
After the 9/11 attacks on the United States, CAIR's Web site featured a link titled, "Donate to the NY/DC Disaster Relief Fund." The link connected to the Web site of the Holy Land Foundation, a charity closed down by the United States three months later as a Hamas front.
...
A founding member of CAIR's Texas chapter, Ghassen Elashi, was convicted of conspiracy and money-laundering charges in connection with the shipment of high-technology items to Syria and Libya in July, 2004.


I disagree - see below.

Here are some of the "terrorists in the equation." Some of them were captured halfway around the world with hand-grenades strapped to their bodies. Rather than summarily behead them, we have brought them to Gitmo for interrogation and imprisonment. There are just over 500 of them.

Your hypothesis that the released prisoners who were re-captured became terrorists only after they were released from Gitmo is, quite frankly, not credible. Sorry for implying that you were anti-american but I can't understand the unwillingness to believe that these are bad people.
Former Gitmo Inmate is leading terrorists

same guy, different attack


8 freed Gitmo inmates rejoin fight in Afghanistan

NBC - detainees return to terrorism

edited to add - have to go to work, quotes worked in preview and are now hopelessly messed up...
re-edited to add - HAH! fixed 'em.

Based on what? Yes, we've imprisoned Arabic people for suspected terrorist links, so that means we're going around rounding up Muslims and killing them off?

How many cases? Are the majority of imprisoned Muslims in Gitmo innocent? I don't know, but I doubt it. Just because there are "plenty of cases" of Muslims being "picked up on the way to the Mosque", doesn't mean that that's what the government is doing. Mistakes are made, the mistakes are horrible. But there is no evidence that Muslims are being targeted simply for being Muslims.

There are American troops in Arabic countries, true. We have gone to war consecutively with Arabic countries, true enough. We hadn't been at war with a an Arabic country in our country's history before...So what happened to change that...September 11th! Moif, I understand how much of an overused cliche this sounds like. But they ATTACKED US. And not as in shooting our soldiers. They slaughetered innocent civilians...Woman, children, the elderly. We aren't the agressors here, we're the victims [go head, laugh if you want]. We were attacked and our government has the responsibility to respond to our attackers, and that's what we're doing.

CP

I found this update on the Guantanamo prisoner situation:

This article goes on to detail the "reason" for the imprisonment of one of the detainees:

I'm sorry, but it sounds like the US is conducting a fishing expedition, and instead of cutting bait, they're going to by god sit there until they get something. Maybe there was once a valid reason to detain some of these individuals, but it has been far too long; if the US hasn't gotten the information they claim these people have, I doubt the information will miraculously appear by incarcerating them for another year, 5 years or 10 years.

Please do not ignore the fact that the overwhelming majority of detainees at Guantamano have not been charged with any crime.

It is simply not fair to damn them just because they are of a different religion.



Hmm. This means that there is not one person detained in all of Gitmo who bears a physical similarity to the dozen Muslims that you know.

I wonder what would happen if a devout Muslim walks up to you and accused you of supporting an unjust invasion of Iraq?

After all, when did Iraq attack the U.S.? Where's the proof that Saddam engineered the 9-11 attacks?

Exactly what proof has been uncovered that Baghdad conspired to kill innocent U.S. civilians?

You can't call all Muslims terrorists.

Because they're not.

It would be fair to say a goodly number of them stridently oppose U.S. foreign policy.

But everyone of them a would-be killer, crouching with a bomb or a gun?

Way off the mark.

Um...I didn't....I'm not going to quote myself again. But I said "with few unfortunate exceptions, I also called those exceptions "embarrassing"....So again...I didn't. Nor would I ever, that would be dishonest and kinda stupid.

Oy vey...I'm not damning anyone because they are of a different religion...This will be the last statement that accuses me of racism that I will respond to.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here...But I think you misunderstood what I meant by "looks like". When I said "looks like" I meant, they aren't terrorists...Devout Muslims are good people [gasp, but I thought CP hated all Muslims ]. I didn't mean physical characteristics.

Well...since it has happened, I'll tell you "what happened". As I said before, I know devout Muslims, and I have a few in my family. One asked that same question. I calmly explained to him why I feel the war isn't unjust...He said he respected my opinion.

Nor did I.

Yeah, thanks for that.

Just to figure out where you are getting this amazingly untrue perception that I hate Muslims and/or think they're all out to kill me; what did I say that would make you post a post completely built on something that I didn't say?

I'm not one for insulting comments Leonard, but we [as in just the 2 of us, not the thread in it's self] are having quite possibly the most futile and stupid debate in the history of this great website. You're trying to convince me that I hate all Muslims, and think they're all terrorists. If that isn't impossible enough, you're using [although not quoting directly, probably because I've never said anything that would make me appear to be Muslim-aphobe] statements that I've never made to back yourself up. Your argument is pointless, you aren't going to convince me that I hate Muslims, so why not focus on the actual debate?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okey dokey folks...To sum myself up: 1. I don't hate Muslims.
2. I don't think they're all terrorists, most are peaceful, caring people just like everyone else.
3. I've never said anything to contradict #'s 1 and 2.

CP

Please do not ignore the fact that the overwhelming majority of detainees at Guantamano have not been charged with any crime.



You just ignored the fact that the overwhelming majority of detainees at Guantamano have not been charged with any crime.

That's not a few exceptions. That's an overwhelming majority.