I shouldn't laugh about any news coming out of Gitmo...
...but I can't help myself.
Time magazine writes:
TIME has obtained the first documented look inside the highly classified realm of military interrogations since the Gitmo Camp at Guantanamo Bay opened. The document is a secret 84-page interrogation log that details the interrogation of ‘Detainee 063’ at Guantanamo Bay. It is a remarkable look into the range of techniques and methods used for the interrogation of Mohammed al Qahtani, who is widely believed to be the so-called 20th hijacker, a compatriot of Osama bin Laden and a man who had tried to enter the U.S. in August 2001 to take part in the Sept. 11 attacks.
The article details different interrogation techniques used to try to get al Qahtani to talk. After trying out various "mild" techniques (e.g. standing for prolonged periods, isolation for as long as 30 days, removal of clothing, forced shaving of facial hair, playing on “individual phobias” (such as dogs) and “mild, non-injurious physical contact such as grabbing, poking in the chest with the finger and light pushing”), the interrogators decide to get serious:
[...]After the new measures are approved, the mood in al-Qahtani’s interrogation booth changes dramatically. The interrogation sessions lengthen. The quizzing now starts at midnight, and when Detainee 063 dozes off, interrogators rouse him by dripping water on his head or playing Christina Aguilera music.
Yes, folks, Christina Aguilera's music might soon be categorized as torture...if she's lucky, it will just be considered humiliation. Imagine everyone back home taunting him, that he had to listen to Dirty:
Ah, dirrty (dirrty)
Filthy (filthy)
Nasty (ho), christina you nasty? (yeah)
Too dirrty to clean my act up
If you ain't dirrty You ain't here to party (woo!)
The interrogations ratchet up, but to no avail:
The log reports that al-Qahtani makes several comments to interrogators that imply he has a big story to tell, but interrogators report that he seems either too scared or simply unwilling, to tell it. On Jan. 10, 2003, al-Qahtani says he knows nothing of terrorists but volunteers to return to the gulf states and act as a double agent for the U.S. in exchange for his freedom. Five days later, Rumsfeld’s harsher measures are revoked after military lawyers in Washington raised questions about their use and efficacy, TIME reports.
Pesky human rights lawyers. If you are going to torture, forget this half-assed Genie in a Bottle stuff. If it were up to me, Gitmo prisioners would all be forced to watch Glitter, Showgirls and Gigli. Then we'd see how many knew "nothing of terrorists."
Time magazine writes:
TIME has obtained the first documented look inside the highly classified realm of military interrogations since the Gitmo Camp at Guantanamo Bay opened. The document is a secret 84-page interrogation log that details the interrogation of ‘Detainee 063’ at Guantanamo Bay. It is a remarkable look into the range of techniques and methods used for the interrogation of Mohammed al Qahtani, who is widely believed to be the so-called 20th hijacker, a compatriot of Osama bin Laden and a man who had tried to enter the U.S. in August 2001 to take part in the Sept. 11 attacks.
The article details different interrogation techniques used to try to get al Qahtani to talk. After trying out various "mild" techniques (e.g. standing for prolonged periods, isolation for as long as 30 days, removal of clothing, forced shaving of facial hair, playing on “individual phobias” (such as dogs) and “mild, non-injurious physical contact such as grabbing, poking in the chest with the finger and light pushing”), the interrogators decide to get serious:
[...]After the new measures are approved, the mood in al-Qahtani’s interrogation booth changes dramatically. The interrogation sessions lengthen. The quizzing now starts at midnight, and when Detainee 063 dozes off, interrogators rouse him by dripping water on his head or playing Christina Aguilera music.
Yes, folks, Christina Aguilera's music might soon be categorized as torture...if she's lucky, it will just be considered humiliation. Imagine everyone back home taunting him, that he had to listen to Dirty:
Ah, dirrty (dirrty)
Filthy (filthy)
Nasty (ho), christina you nasty? (yeah)
Too dirrty to clean my act up
If you ain't dirrty You ain't here to party (woo!)
The interrogations ratchet up, but to no avail:
The log reports that al-Qahtani makes several comments to interrogators that imply he has a big story to tell, but interrogators report that he seems either too scared or simply unwilling, to tell it. On Jan. 10, 2003, al-Qahtani says he knows nothing of terrorists but volunteers to return to the gulf states and act as a double agent for the U.S. in exchange for his freedom. Five days later, Rumsfeld’s harsher measures are revoked after military lawyers in Washington raised questions about their use and efficacy, TIME reports.
Pesky human rights lawyers. If you are going to torture, forget this half-assed Genie in a Bottle stuff. If it were up to me, Gitmo prisioners would all be forced to watch Glitter, Showgirls and Gigli. Then we'd see how many knew "nothing of terrorists."
posted by CaliValleyGirl at 2:57 PM
7 Comments:
I don't know... I think Gigli could be considered cruel and unusual punishment for anyone... *grin*
As mild as all that sounds, the Geneva Convention forbids all of it. However, the prisoners at Gitmo are not classied as POW's but "enemy combatants," which are not mandated by the Geneva protocols. What are enemy combatants? Heck if I know.
This is a very sticky issue. Personally I would like to see anyone with any foreknowledge or support of 9/11 fry a thousand times over. But I also think that if we are going to hold them indefinately and interrogate them, then we have to have some rules or international standards to operate by. I really don't think Rumsfeld should be in charge of setting policy on this one. It's way too important to be left up to a dunce like him.
Showgirls torture??? No way that movie was awesome. We all snuck out in high school to go see that one.
MJ, I agree with you on the sticky issue...but sorry, Showgirls was sooooo bad. I had a "bad movie" video night with some friends and we watched that, and were almost tempted to clean our palate with Glitter...that's how bad that movie is...I mean, the sex scene in the pool? It's even funnier in fast-forward and rewind.
You know what's funny, is that I remember when Showgirls first came out and local churches in the town where I grew up protested the cinema that was showing the movie. Every night church groups would pickett out in front of the cinema where the lines would gather waiting for the movie to open.
Of course most seeing the movie were high school age boys like myself, but there were some older people as well. These crazy Christians would stand out and pray for our souls as we walked into the theatre. Sometimes police had to be called to remove the protestors.
Today, that movie would be releasd without many noticing. Back then it was considered soft porn. Wow, now I'm feeling old.
I would think if they are going to show prisoners Showgirls, they would have to give them a rag also :)
Glitter, now that's a movie that would drive anyone to the brink. It was really horrible.
I have a friend who for works as a cop. He has to watch what music he plays in the squad car or they complain that it's to tourture them. It's silly.
Household6
"What are enemy combatants? Heck if I know."
MJ - they are people who fight for the enemy without wearing a uniform. In other words they can not be identified by their appearance as being an enemy. That's a HUGE no-no when there's a war on and the people who participate in such activities are generally given little to no rights or consideration.
During WW2 - if say a plane went down and the guys were trying to escape with help from the locals (who might dress them in civilian clothes) they faced instant death by firing squad if captured... because of not wearing a uniform. If they had been in uniform - they might have been taken to a POW camp instead (don't know how much better that would be).
Anyhow - one of the soldier bloggers (wish I could remember who) did a really good post on this topic. Basically, if you try to look like a civilian to gain an advantage in killing soldiers during a war situation - you forfeit all rights to any type of conventional treatment once captured.
Well, I'm not sure if it was the post you were referring to Teresa, but 3XEject was good:
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000125.html
Post a Comment
<< Home