More on the Koran at Gitmo
Well, the Post report today seems to confirm that incidents of Koran "desecration" at Guantanamo Bay are mostly minor and accidental. In fact, if this report can be believed, then we're handling the book with more respect than the prisoners are.
I again assert that we need to be worrying about here is that people--some of them probably innocent--are being held without trial, and for years. We also need to be worried about the possibility that those people are being tortured. But, especially against the backdrop of these far more serious issues, it just doesn't seem very important to observe a bunch of complicated and nonsensical traditions about how to handle one particular book. The fact that the prisoners themselves don't seem to be following the restrictions very carefully gives us additional evidence that they aren't really that sensible or important.
As a sidebar here, I'd like to point out my favorite sentence in the WaPo story:
"The interrogator was fired for a 'pattern of unacceptable behavior, an inability to follow direct guidance and poor leadership,' according to the news release yesterday."
Apparently an ability to follow poor leadership has evolved from simply being the norm in America to being an outright requirement for employment by the government...
Well, the Post report today seems to confirm that incidents of Koran "desecration" at Guantanamo Bay are mostly minor and accidental. In fact, if this report can be believed, then we're handling the book with more respect than the prisoners are.
I again assert that we need to be worrying about here is that people--some of them probably innocent--are being held without trial, and for years. We also need to be worried about the possibility that those people are being tortured. But, especially against the backdrop of these far more serious issues, it just doesn't seem very important to observe a bunch of complicated and nonsensical traditions about how to handle one particular book. The fact that the prisoners themselves don't seem to be following the restrictions very carefully gives us additional evidence that they aren't really that sensible or important.
As a sidebar here, I'd like to point out my favorite sentence in the WaPo story:
"The interrogator was fired for a 'pattern of unacceptable behavior, an inability to follow direct guidance and poor leadership,' according to the news release yesterday."
Apparently an ability to follow poor leadership has evolved from simply being the norm in America to being an outright requirement for employment by the government...
posted by Winston Smith at
9:38 AM
14 Comments:
How can "don't kick or stand or spray with urine your prisoner's holy text" be considered "complicated"? I love the Post headline, by the way: "got wet".
And "The fact that the prisoners themselves don't seem to be following the restrictions very carefully [etc.]" seems to me additional evidence that you're so eager to dismiss this story that you're willing to assume a monolithic culture among the prisoners in order to make your argument - to go from "if this report can be believed" [without mentioning why it might not be] to "The fact that".
So, answer the question as to why this story is a big deal. It's clear it's a minor issue if an issue at all. The incident in question was reported previously by other major media sources as far back as 2003. Clearly, any sane person would say "gee, I would have thought torture and holding without charges would be far more important".
So, why the big deal?
On the one hand you have those who seem eager to blame the riots on the reporting. Something that you clearly can't do if you take the view point that this is a minor, trivial issue and doubly clear if you admit that similar - if not identical - reports had already been published.
On the other hand you have? Who? What? Is AI pressing the issue? Are liberals using this as a stick against the Bush administration? Perhaps it is a big deal in the left side of the politics, but it just doesn't seem like it to me.
Nope, clearly the reason why it's a big deal is because of the use of a tiny article as the blame for the riots which is then used to suppress any negative reporting about the war. And thus it becomes symbolic of the whole war on accurate reporting.
Am I missing anything here? Is my train of thought sound?
Rilkefan--
I assure you, I'm NOT eager to dismiss this story. I just don't see that such "desecration" is a big deal--EXCEPT for the urine part. I thought the "got wet" and "got peed on" incidents were separate...my mistake? Anyway, I was initially outraged about the latter, thinking "look, there's no way that someone ACCIDENTALLY took a wiz on the Koran." But the explanation about the air vent seemed plausible enough that I didn't see any grounds for disbelieving it. Do you disagree?
Anonymous--
Good idea. You could be right. This is why I urge people not to just unload every criticism they can think of...b/c then if one or two minor ones are easily refutable, it (psychologically, rhetorically--not logically) undermines even the sound points.
Winston, I expressed myself a bit too energetically - I meant to argue that applying your above logic to your argument one could get my conclusion, or something along those lines requiring an effort to make clear. Anyway, the story is perhaps implausible enough to be true, but I doubt it - and at this point, why _should_ I believe it? Why shouldn't I believe the inmate's reports instead? And why is it that this report only covers incidents after the military instituted better procedures and not before?
Meant to note btw that the WaPo article buys in 100% to the Koran-reports-triggered-riots line - prima facie evidence that the report is as likely to be unfiltered WH propaganda as not.
"Why shouldn't I believe the inmate's reports instead?"
Because they're self-annihilating maniacs who have been instructed to lie?
Just a thought. This epistemology thing gets a bit precious sometimes.
Oops - "inmates'". Maybe "scores of inmates'".
"Because they're self-annihilating maniacs who have been instructed to lie?"
Maybe, or maybe that's just a right-wing paranoid fantasy. Or maybe that taxi driver we tortured to death actually got himself sold into our custody in search of self-annihilation.
Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?
This is not a game. The next time the US proudly videotapes the beheading of an innocent, or an American soldier walks into a place of worship and blows himself along with women and children, you are entitled to speak.
Nay, encouraged. Until then...
Until then let's enjoy our gulag, including some of the nicer oubliettes of our electode-wielding allies. As long as the blood is kept out of sight of the self-deceiving public and the approving but squeamish right-wingers, it's Party Time.
Abyss Ho!
There is the implication that anyone in American custody is ipso facto a terrorist, and therefore 'the gloves have to come off' in dealing with these menaces to America, no matter what.
That torturing innocents is a great recruitment card for OBL and co. didn't seem to cross the minds of those involved in setting up Gitmo, and that they refuse to acknowledge that "we screwed up"(a shout-out to the reality-based community) is most telling.
There is the implication that anyone in American custody is ipso facto a terrorist, and therefore the danger is too high to release them without knowing they are not dangerous.
"Torturing innocents" is a straw man on both counts.
Problem is, we can't trust either the administration or the prisoners. We're dealing with two sets of irrational fundamentalists (redundant) here. The administratoin is not as brutal as the guys on the other side, but as for lying...well, they're almost in the same league there I'd guess...
One might use common sense, as in:
---Al-Qaeda members should allege being tortured, so that the West's well-documented moral squeamishness would result in a weakening of their will to oppose us homicidal maniacs who will one day make our sacred religion rightfully rule the world.
---US forces should torture suspects just for the fuck of it, in case we ever have to release them so they can emerge even more pissed off and run to Amnesty International and the world press. Plus that's What Jesus Would Do, and since we're irrational fundamentalists, we shall follow His Divine Command.
Are we morally squeamish????
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home