Obviously not in those words, for they are a bunch of mendacious spinners. However, the government has now admitted that Gitmo guards pissed on one prisoner’s Koran and wrote obscenities in another. While that’s not *literally* flushing it down the bog, anyone who thinks there’s a significant difference between the two acts is a total fucking joker.
The story is that urine was sprinkled on a copy of the Koran because of a vent in the floor next to a urinal. The story might be rubbish; but if not, the "total fucking joker" is the person who thinks that this is not significantly different from flushing it down the bog. (That would be you, John.)
Found via Dear Kitty:
Sure, it wasn’t deliberate; I’m sure our guards urinate all the time accidentally into the air vents of cells where detainees are housed, because of course there is no other place for our guards to urinate.
I don’t know about anyone else, but people living in my block of flats live in fear of me using the toilet: that’s on hell of an extractor fan I’ve got in my bathroom!
I dunno Jimmy. The guard did piss on the Koran and the prisoner (via an air vent). Deliberately doing so would certainly be as bad as flushing the Koran down the bog. Accidentally doing so would be almost as fuckwitted as accidentally flushing the Koran down the bog.
Gulag! You call that a gulag. I had worse things happen to me on basic training.
David you’re getting confused: the gulag-metaphor is about torture and indefinite imprisonment without legal recourse. I very much doubt you underwent anything comparable during basic training.
The Koran-flushing is a side issue, only really of interest because it was reported and then denied. Now we know the truth: the Koran was pissed on, kicked, and defaced, but never, repeat NEVER, flushed. For me it’s the cover-up which is of interest, rather than the event itself.
Yeah, exactly. The story is roughly this: Newsweek publishes an article saying Koran is being flushed down a loo. Some religious nutcases go on the rampage (I mean, WTF???). Whitehouse has a hissy-fit, Newsweek retracts story, politicians blame Newsweek for deaths in rioting (I would blame the rioters, but there we go). It then later transpires that while it appears the exact allergation was wrong, Newsweek was pretty much in the right ballpark. In a sane world, the Whitehouse would be crapping itself. Instead, Newsweek has taken the flac.
As Larry says, it’s the cover-up which is interesting, and rather symptomatic of the whole WoT. "We don’t torture people", we get our "allies" to do it instead; "We don’t flush Korans", we just mistreat them in other ways; "We don’t need trials" because, erm, we just don’t, apparently.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with the whole Koran desecration thing: the Islamists are crazed enough that all out war is pretty much inevitable eventually. Best to set them off now, and do away with them before they accrete too much power to themselves.
Hmmm. "Rhyme." Would that be as opposed to reason?
I agree entirely with a Jimmy Doyle comment. Clearly these are the end times…
"I very much doubt you underwent anything comparable during basic training."
You haven’t experienced basic training for the Parachute Regiment! But later, in what passed for my army career, I was an interrogator, and were I faced with an Islamic fundamentalist whom I wished to break and turn, I would consider (amongst other options) making him eat shredded Koran! You do anything that you think will achieve the desired result of breaking his will to resist – short of physical torture. And before you ask, there is a difference between harsh treatment and torture. I don’t normally ponce for my own site, but if you would like to read more on the subject try:
http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/duff_nonsense/2005/02/the_pliers_jenk.html
DD – I think Larry was referring to the indefinite detention without trial or any apparent prospect of release, rather than the humiliation, when he suggested you hadn’t experienced that at basic training.
Yes, ‘john b’, I know, and I was being ironic, always difficult in print.
But the main question has to be concentrated on how a democracy deals with actual or potential terrorists. One thing is certain, it is *almost* impossible to deal with them in the same way as criminals, not least because the authorities (who are trying to protect the rest of us, remember) are mainly looking for *information* not convictions. It is a very complex subject, and whilst it is essential that civil liberty groups keep a close eye on the situation, blowing up silly stories and likening interrogation centres to Soviet death camps in which millions perished, is to make your own cause ridiculous
David,
likening interrogation centres to Soviet death camps in which millions perished, is to make your own cause ridiculous
I don’t entirely disagree with that. But I also think that (Gulags or not) facilities like Guantanamo have no place in the free world, least of all in the "land of the free". It’s obscene hypocrisy. Presumably that’s why they site such facilities abroad.
there is a difference between harsh treatment and torture
Absolutely, in the context of the 72 hour limit you propose. But in the context of indefinite detention, I think the difference breaks down. Psychologically damaging levels of suffering are being inflicted in Gitmo, and I’d call that torture. If you made your inmate eat a shredded Koran once, maybe you could pass it off as harsh treatment. But to keep him locked up for years at a stretch eating shredded Korans on a regular basis will reduce him to a gibbering wreck. It’s torture.
the authorities (who are trying to protect the rest of us, remember)
But not at any cost. I think it’s vital to have standards of human rights that we expect all to abide by. To have the leader of the free world publicly flouting them is atrocious. Having the US publicly torturing muslims could easily do far more harm than good, in terms of galvanising (and (to a limited extent) handing the moral high-ground to) anti-American sentiment. Also of course other countries will also be far more likely to take a "if the US doesn’t abide by such high standards why the hell should we" approach in their own dubious "anti-terrorist measures".
Many of the inmates of Gitmo have been there for several years. Any information they do have is likely to be long out of date. Any "ticking bomb" is likely to have gone off or fizzled out long ago.
mainly looking for *information* not convictions
This certainly should be the case, but convictions are good PR…
it is essential that civil liberty groups keep a close eye on the situation
And they do, and then they get called "naive Al Qaeda apologists" for their pains. Any road no-one in the US administration pays the slightest bit of attention to what they say.
it is *almost* impossible to deal with them in the same way as criminals
But criminals (specifically murderers) is exactly what they are! *If* we’re talking about a large-scale terrorist organisation, then you encounter exactly the same problems as you do when dealing with the Mafia. You don’t just want to arrest the couriers, you need to do serious investigative work to get *information* about the bosses, about planned criminal acts. You’ve get to get moles and double-agents in there (not a job I’d volunteer for), and so on. It’s high-level detective work.
*But*, in any case, as John points out with great regularity, the perception of AQ as a huge well-connected, well-armed, international organisation is fear-mongering nonsense. It’s an ideology. If you don’t want people to set bombs off, the best bet is to carefully control the availibility of bombs.
John B and Larry: This link is about to drop off the bottom edge which is a pity because it has got me thinking. I have decided to post on it in some detail over on my site (later this evening). I suspect I have broken an unwritten rule by using your site to advertise my own, but I couldn’t find a way to e-mail Larry direct and let him know privately.
This link is about to drop off the bottom edge which is a pity
Don’t worry David you’re not going to fall off the edge of the world! Click on "View archives: June 2005" on the right hand side of the page, scroll down, and we can carry on hammering away at each other right here until the year 3005. Still I await your post with interest. Having said which I’ll be away for most of the next week so you might have to wait for my reaction to it – but I’m sure you can cope with that!
David, by the way shamelessly plugging your own blog in other people’s comments sections is perhaps slightly frowned upon when it’s totally gratuitous (though far from uncommon). When it’s genuinely relevant, it’s entirely appropriate. Anyway what’s the worst that could happen? You could be banned of course!
Or you could fuck up the URL…
David’s blog; Larry’s blog; this post. Together, these links should stand everyone in good stead…
(Yes, I know it’s irritating, but this is even better shared…) Meanwhile from the always-good-for-a-hilarious-quote Verity in the comments field at Samizdata…
_these prisoners at Gitmo are not covered by the Geneva Convention, and their treatment, despite not being covered, illustrates the generosity and sunniness of the American character._
Honest. If she has any thoughts on Nagasaki and the American character[*], I’ll be watching.
* In house style, with asterisk: just to say that I in fact do think the American character is fairly sunny, but that Gitmo isn’t evidence of that.