Torture and College Life

[Nik]

The radicalization preceded the Iraq war.
"To understand why more and more Muslims are becoming radicalized, one can look to the original currents that fed into the violent Islamic extremism of the 1980s and '90s, culminating on September 11, 2001. Along with a majority of the 9/11 hijackers, Osama bin Laden is a Saudi who embraces the fundamentalist Wahhabi version of Islam, puritanical in its strictures and extremely intolerant of nonbelievers."
FRONTLINE/WORLD . Canada - The Cell Door . Reversing Islamic Radicalization . PBS

I guess that puts a stake through the heart of your argument.

Really? Did you even read the article you posted? From it:

Evidence of a growing radicalization in the Islamic world is substantive and quantifiable. Data points include the recent deadly riots by Muslims infuriated over cartoon depictions of the Prophet Mohammad published in a Danish newspaper, and extended rioting and vandalism in France by disaffected Muslim youth. In Europe, intelligence officials report a significant rise in radicalized Muslims joining terrorist networks by the hundreds, and perhaps thousands, in order to wage jihad against the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq. In the most recent Pew global attitudes polls, approximately 15 percent of Muslims surveyed in Britain, France, and Spain believed suicide bombings and other forms of violence were at least sometimes justified in the defense of Islam.

By the way, thats only one authors view. Any particular reason you treat it as sancrosanct and as a complete answer to the question?

Since you require a more complete answer, here is your history lesson for today.
King Abdel-Aziz was the founder of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. He found himself battling the Ikhwan, a tribal religious militia of extremist Wahhabibs. This was in the 1920's. An alliance between Abdel-Aziz and the family of Mohammad bin Abdel-Wahhab resulted in the conquest of what is now the kingdom, and the kingdom assumed he religious preference of Abdel-Wahhab as far back as the start of the 20th century.

The Saudi's have used religion both to retain control of the kingdom and as a projection of foreign policy. The radical Wahhabi elements have resurfaced in the kingdom many times, but the royal family has been able to use tribalism, familism, religion with Quranic imprecations of obedience against Islamic rebels.

I recommend a facinating book, "The Siege of Mecca,' by Trofimov, if you wish to understand the wars between Riyadh's Islam and radical Islam, which covers the conquest of Mecca by radical Wahhabis in 1979, and the subsequent re-taking by the Saudis with the help of the French. The brother of ringleader Juhayman was later involved in the assassination of Sadat.

Summary: radicalization goes back before 1900, and has been an element that few countries besides Saudi Arabia have been able to control and even direct.

Thats nice. Too bad it doesn't detract from my point. Many muslims were radicalized by the invasion of Iraq. This doesn't, obviously, mean thats the only thing that has ever radicalized anyone, and its likely thats not the only factor. But it was a major contributing cause for a large number of people, and the article YOU cited, states that.

 

[Nik]

Y'all are arguing with someone that buys what the lawyers from the Justice Department were selling...what it has listed is basically the tortured reasoning that some lawyers used to claim that torture was legal.

Hi Rati,

What brings you here?

Did someone put out some cheese?

Debate is to offer opinion, to discuss, to consider ideas, not the use of the above language, the personal or ad hominem attack.

Consistency fail.

 

[Ravi]

Y'all are arguing with someone that buys what the lawyers from the Justice Department were selling...what it has listed is basically the tortured reasoning that some lawyers used to claim that torture was legal.

Hi Rati,

What brings you here?

Did someone put out some cheese?

Debate is to offer opinion, to discuss, to consider ideas, not the use of the above language, the personal or ad hominem attack.

Consistency fail.

The only thing PC is consistent at is regurgitating Coulter.

 

[garyd]

Islam has been fairly Radical to extremely Radical depending on the Haditha in use since about, oh 650AD.

 

[MaggieMae]

Just so that I can judge which is actually contemptible, girl-man, please provide a list of the terrorists who were treated with these techniques and subsequently died, were permanently maimed, and/or spent time in intensive care.

Which list? The frat boys or the Muslims? If the latter, we'll really never know. Do you really think anyone is about to give up that information? Why do you think videotapes of the tortures mysterially disappeared or were destroyed?

That said, what WOULD work against Muslim extremists are things that some sick so-called Americans seek out for thrills: Observing menstrual flow from a woman's naked genitals, beastiality, kiddie porn. And then there's the threat of sexual violence to a Muslim's family members, photoshopped pictures of Allah in compromising sexual positions or even profanity used to defame the prophet Mohammed. On the other hand, by sacrificing their own bodies to physical torture or even death will be rewarded in Heaven. Those beliefs are embedded genetically by followers of ancient Islam.

Judging by the straws that you clutch at, you are unable to find fault with my list of college kid pranks as they correspond to the so-called torture list.

So let's review, the NYTimes enumeration is so flimsy, so insubstantial that it hardly approached the level of torture. Agreed?

Only the whiners and hand-wringing counter-American policy left-wing radicals find the list to be 'torture.' Further agreed?

I don't understand your point. Why are my observations "straws"?? Are we talking about torture CHAMBERS or tortuous PRANKS?! If you are determined to stick with your amusing comparison as the central discussion, I would have to say there IS no comparison. With the exception of rare instances of hazing where someone actually dies, most college pranks aren't done out of pure anger and hatred against the prankee, who, like in training military recruits what to expect during torture, they don't expect to DIE.

 

[MaggieMae]

Now, now, girly-man, watch your language, after all you're not talking to your mom.

So you contend that the interrogation techniques listed in my college-prank post caused the deaths that you note?

Have someone more literate read the report that you link to you, since your hate of America is clouding what abiltiy at comprehension you might have, in a calmer state.

"Indeed, a report into detainee abuse completed in 2004 by Vice Admiral Albert T. Church, the former Naval inspector general, who conducted an investigation into detainee abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan at the request of then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, specifically cleared Pentagon officials stating they “did not promulgate interrogation policies . . . that directed, sanctioned or encouraged the torture or abuse of detainees."

A declassified version of the 360-page Church report, delivered to Congress in March 2004, said there was "no policy that condoned or authorized either abuse or torture," which critics of the Bush administration believed was a cover-up."
Senate Panel's Report Links Detainees' Murders to Bush's Torture Policy


The operative phrase: "did not promulgate interrogation policies . . . that directed, sanctioned or encouraged the torture or abuse of detainees."

Further, it is telling that 'news' of the deaths of prisoners resulting from the listed techniques appears in this 'pubreport,' or 'impeachbush,' or 'islamicblog,' but not splashed on the front pages of the oh so 'conservative' NYTimes, or the LATimes, or the Washington Post, or the Boston Globe, or even the WSJournal.

Does this not seem odd to you, Nikki, or have you not looked under each and every rock, yet?

I bet the girl scouts could come up with some more serious techniques, but then you'd claim that they were Bush-robot-fascists.

Nicht wahr?

Rumsfeld and Church. Now there's a combination worthy of oxymoronism.

I can almost guarantee you that if Rummy didn't like the results of the Church investigation, it never would have seen the light of day without heavy redaction.

Bank of America? Citi? Which bank will honor the "almost guarantee"?

And did you make a similar guarantee before the Iraq War along the lines of "if there are no WMD's, they'll plant some"?

Have faith, M & M, have faith.

But if you don't respect the Church report as reported in the NYTimes, do I get to say the same about any report out of, say, a Democrat Administrtion?

Knock yourself out.

 

[MaggieMae]

The assumed incompetence of the opposition is an absolutely lousy basis upon which to wage a war that is essentially being fought against a disparate group of people acting as freelance spies and saboteurs to further their own agenda or that of some knuckle dragging cave dweller that wishes to return us all to the fifteenth century when last Islam held the whip hand.

That was a rather deep common sense rationale, and I agree (I think).

It goes to the simple fact that radical Islamists don't belong to any nation state, and for that reason, they will exist in varying degrees of numbers ad infinitum.

Did I hear Lindsey Graham suggest in one of the hearings last week that captured terrorists should be treated as common criminals (paraphrased)?? Seems to me that would solve the biggest part of the problem of what to do with them, and how to "categorize" them--enemy soldiers or enemy combatants? But that was also how John Kerry wanted them to be classified--as thugs who committed crimes against Americans--try them, sentence them, put them to death when found guilty. Zacarias Moussaoui is now serving life in prison for being one of bin Laden's gofers (no real knowledge of 911).

 

[MaggieMae]

" stand without sleep for five days straight,"
"You have informed us that to date, more than a dozen detainees have been subjected to sleep deprivation of more than 48 hours, and three detainees have been subjected to sleep deprivation of more than 96 hours."
Interrogation Techniques - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com

OK, more than four days. I'm not much off here. they usually do this more than once in a session that can last several minutes. sorry if my language was unclear.

" have themselves shaken violently by collars into walls. "
""A flexible false wall will be constructed. It is the individual's shoulder blades that hit the wall. During this motion, the head and neck are supported with a rolled hood or towel that provides a c-collar effect to help prevent whiplash …"
Interrogation Techniques - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com

"not honest or accurate examples of what those are like..."
Now, who was inaccurate?

Now that that is cleared up, it appears that you have an ax to grind.

While my descriptions were not clinical, you cannot seriously allege they were far off base.

How does it feel to get spanked by Political Chic?

Surely you jest. Just the way s/he presents her posts proves she's on the defensive. She's easy to debate (which further pisses her off).

 

[MaggieMae]

Judging by the straws that you clutch at, you are unable to find fault with my list of college kid pranks as they correspond to the so-called torture list.

So let's review, the NYTimes enumeration is so flimsy, so insubstantial that it hardly approached the level of torture. Agreed?

Only the whiners and hand-wringing counter-American policy left-wing radicals find the list to be 'torture.' Further agreed?

Why does it always have to be the "list"? why is it all or nothing? maybe some things on the list cross the line, and others don't. I think that waterboarding, sleep deprevation for more than 48 hours, and walling cross the line.

I don't.

Torture has to involve permanent injury, joint dislocations, repeatedly breaking bones, severing limbs, that sort of stuff.....essentially what the N. Vietnamese did to their POWs and the N. Koreans and Japanese before them.

"Has to involve"??? You're kidding.

And will anyone ever know how many suspected terrorists who were tortured were physically maimed? Permanently disabled somehow? Died? Of course not. Would those be contained in Cheney's "notes"?? Of course not. Cheney's bloviating that he wants ALL OF THE RECORDS TO BE PUBLIC was political theatrics. There's no way in hell the CIA will ever let the public know exactly what went on.

 

[MaggieMae]

Memos shed light on CIA use of sleep deprivation - Los Angeles Times

A CIA inspector general's report issued in 2004 was more critical of the agency's use of sleep deprivation than it was of any other method besides waterboarding, according to officials familiar with the document, because of how the technique was applied.

The prisoners had their feet shackled to the floor and their hands cuffed close to their chins, according to the Justice Department memos.

Detainees were clad only in diapers and not allowed to feed themselves. A prisoner who started to drift off to sleep would tilt over and be caught by his chains.

The memos said that more than 25 of the CIA's prisoners were subjected to sleep deprivation. At one point, the agency was allowed to keep prisoners awake for as long as 11 days; the limit was later reduced to just over a week.

According to the memos, medical personnel were to make sure prisoners weren't injured. But a 2007 Red Cross report on the CIA program said that detainees' wrists and ankles bore scars from their shackles.

When detainees could no longer stand, they could be laid on the prison floor with their limbs "anchored to a far point on the floor in such a manner that the arms cannot be bent or used for balance or comfort," a May 10, 2005, memo said.

Laugh it up. This is funny stuff, innit?

Keep on applauding for the thugs who did this in the name of our country.

Shackles...scars...diapers...that's what this nation is apparently now about, and that's just fine with PC.

To be as blunt as possible: Your post made me fucking sick.

I'm so glad than I get a chance to reply, unlike the less than honorable 'neg rep' that you applied.

Review.
1. My premise is that the techniques outlined in the NYTimes are far from torture.
2. One of our colleagues, showing the same kind of outrage that you evince, posted about deaths of detainees from these techniques. I showed that this is untrue.
3. I asked for the detainees were were killed, maimed, or hospitalized for extended time due to these techniques. None were provided.
4. Another board member offered that our soldiers who were exposed to these techniques knew, at least, that they weren't going to die. I documented that the detainees also knew that their religion allowed them to give up the intell after a point, a point that they could determine, therefore they also knew that they would not die.
5. One post offered that a particular treaty obviated these techniques. I showed that the treaty only applied to particular countries.
6. And, my main point, that every one of the enhanced techniques mirrors, to a greater or lesser degree, contain some of the 'thousand natural shocks this flesh is heir to' in daily lives.
Now, notice. Folks offer opinion, and defend them. They debate points with evidence. But none of the others, as strongly as they felt, chose the dubious method of 'neg rep'ing. But you.

Here is your punishment. You make an emotional argument? Well, here is my emotional argument. If you have the courage, watch the children of Beslan, and tell my how it compares to the limp, insipid, 'enhanced interrogation techniques.'

And your major problem is that you cannot PROVE any of your points one way or the other because unless you are privy to eyes-only, top secret crypto CIA information, you are only guessing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Memos shed light on CIA use of sleep deprivation - Los Angeles Times


Laugh it up. This is funny stuff, innit?

Keep on applauding for the thugs who did this in the name of our country.

Shackles...scars...diapers...that's what this nation is apparently now about, and that's just fine with PC.

To be as blunt as possible: Your post made me fucking sick.

I'm so glad than I get a chance to reply, unlike the less than honorable 'neg rep' that you applied.

Review.
1. My premise is that the techniques outlined in the NYTimes are far from torture.
2. One of our colleagues, showing the same kind of outrage that you evince, posted about deaths of detainees from these techniques. I showed that this is untrue.
3. I asked for the detainees were were killed, maimed, or hospitalized for extended time due to these techniques. None were provided.
4. Another board member offered that our soldiers who were exposed to these techniques knew, at least, that they weren't going to die. I documented that the detainees also knew that their religion allowed them to give up the intell after a point, a point that they could determine, therefore they also knew that they would not die.
5. One post offered that a particular treaty obviated these techniques. I showed that the treaty only applied to particular countries.
6. And, my main point, that every one of the enhanced techniques mirrors, to a greater or lesser degree, contain some of the 'thousand natural shocks this flesh is heir to' in daily lives.
Now, notice. Folks offer opinion, and defend them. They debate points with evidence. But none of the others, as strongly as they felt, chose the dubious method of 'neg rep'ing. But you.

Here is your punishment. You make an emotional argument? Well, here is my emotional argument. If you have the courage, watch the children of Beslan, and tell my how it compares to the limp, insipid, 'enhanced interrogation techniques.'

And your major problem is that you cannot PROVE any of your points one way or the other because unless you are privy to eyes-only, top secret crypto CIA information, you are only guessing.

What a silly post.

Obviously, the defense you use applies to the other side as well.

 

[MaggieMae]

We all produce a slip of the tongue now and again, but you are abusing the privilege.

Do you actually want to build an argument around the concept that the terrorists were even-temper, moderate students and merchants prior to the Iraq war?

How about you simply retract and start over.

Some of them were, actually. You should try reading some of the literature on AQ. People tend to get pissed off when you invade their country, gee I wonder why.

The radicalization preceded the Iraq war.
"To understand why more and more Muslims are becoming radicalized, one can look to the original currents that fed into the violent Islamic extremism of the 1980s and '90s, culminating on September 11, 2001. Along with a majority of the 9/11 hijackers, Osama bin Laden is a Saudi who embraces the fundamentalist Wahhabi version of Islam, puritanical in its strictures and extremely intolerant of nonbelievers."
FRONTLINE/WORLD . Canada - The Cell Door . Reversing Islamic Radicalization . PBS

I guess that puts a stake through the heart of your argument.

Then how would you explain why AQ never bothered with Iraq before it's invasion, which split the two major Iraqi factions of Shia and Sunni? If their intent was to slither into any region where Muslims were pissed off going back 30 years, Iraq should have been ripe for recruitment. Oh wait! Bin Laden DID offer to help Saddam Hussein stave off another invasion by Iran, and SH said thanks but no thanks. Al Qaeda only appeared in large numbers AFTER the U.S. invasion and successfully recruited the sudden minority, which was once the majority, the Sunnis. It's a classic Qaeda MO.

 

[MaggieMae]

The radicalization preceded the Iraq war....

I guess that puts a stake through the heart of your argument.

Not really, no, because the torture story of Abu Ghraib, and others, exacerbated the existing radical problem, and made recruiting easier for the Taliban and Al Qaeda. We made the problem WORSE by abdicating our core values.

All PC would need to do is review the annual NSA reports on global terrorism and she would know how it dramatically rose following the invasion of Iraq.

 

[MaggieMae]

"Some of them were." You lose, I win.

Umm, no. My argument was never that all of them were, merely some of them. But good job declaring yourself the winner. It seems that you've given up on actual arguments and instead have just taken to declaring yourself the winner

There are posters who simply scatter words the way the flower girl scatters rose petals at a wedding, and with as much significance.

That would be you.

"given up on actual arguments." Re-read post # 73 for specifics.

Specifics based on WHAT? Concrete evidence? Hardly.

 

[MaggieMae]

The radicalization preceded the Iraq war....

I guess that puts a stake through the heart of your argument.

Not really, no, because the torture story of Abu Ghraib, and others, exacerbated the existing radical problem, and made recruiting easier for the Taliban and Al Qaeda. We made the problem WORSE by abdicating our core values.

A common talking point, but without proof.

I guess you couldn't translate your sig.

Since it becomes increasingly obvious that you don't research any of your opinions from anything other than Coulter-esque (aka Human Events) diatribes and then parrot those, perhaps you could remove your nose from those for a change and read a brief analysis by the conservative RAND Corporation think tank on this subject. This actually provides the strategy employed by al Qaeda with regard to overtaking Iraq. When Iraq was invaded by the United States, Bin Laden must have been sighing that it just doesn't get any better than this.

RAND | Newsroom | Commentary | Saddam Is Ours. Does Al Qaeda Care?

 

[MaggieMae]

The radicalization preceded the Iraq war.
"To understand why more and more Muslims are becoming radicalized, one can look to the original currents that fed into the violent Islamic extremism of the 1980s and '90s, culminating on September 11, 2001. Along with a majority of the 9/11 hijackers, Osama bin Laden is a Saudi who embraces the fundamentalist Wahhabi version of Islam, puritanical in its strictures and extremely intolerant of nonbelievers."
FRONTLINE/WORLD . Canada - The Cell Door . Reversing Islamic Radicalization . PBS

I guess that puts a stake through the heart of your argument.

Really? Did you even read the article you posted? From it:

Evidence of a growing radicalization in the Islamic world is substantive and quantifiable. Data points include the recent deadly riots by Muslims infuriated over cartoon depictions of the Prophet Mohammad published in a Danish newspaper, and extended rioting and vandalism in France by disaffected Muslim youth. In Europe, intelligence officials report a significant rise in radicalized Muslims joining terrorist networks by the hundreds, and perhaps thousands, in order to wage jihad against the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq. In the most recent Pew global attitudes polls, approximately 15 percent of Muslims surveyed in Britain, France, and Spain believed suicide bombings and other forms of violence were at least sometimes justified in the defense of Islam.

By the way, thats only one authors view. Any particular reason you treat it as sancrosanct and as a complete answer to the question?

Since you require a more complete answer, here is your history lesson for today.
King Abdel-Aziz was the founder of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. He found himself battling the Ikhwan, a tribal religious militia of extremist Wahhabibs. This was in the 1920's. An alliance between Abdel-Aziz and the family of Mohammad bin Abdel-Wahhab resulted in the conquest of what is now the kingdom, and the kingdom assumed he religious preference of Abdel-Wahhab as far back as the start of the 20th century.

The Saudi's have used religion both to retain control of the kingdom and as a projection of foreign policy. The radical Wahhabi elements have resurfaced in the kingdom many times, but the royal family has been able to use tribalism, familism, religion with Quranic imprecations of obedience against Islamic rebels.

I recommend a facinating book, "The Siege of Mecca,' by Trofimov, if you wish to understand the wars between Riyadh's Islam and radical Islam, which covers the conquest of Mecca by radical Wahhabis in 1979, and the subsequent re-taking by the Saudis with the help of the French. The brother of ringleader Juhayman was later involved in the assassination of Sadat.

Summary: radicalization goes back before 1900, and has been an element that few countries besides Saudi Arabia have been able to control and even direct.

So what does a history of Islamic barbarism prove? The white man tortured and slaughtered the red man when we decided their land was a nice place to raise families instead of enduring the tyranny of England. While there are admittedly more Muslims who haven't evolved yet even from the 15th Century, our own history of taking what we want through violent means (or getting others to do it for us) makes theirs rather irrelevant.

 

[MaggieMae]

Y'all are arguing with someone that buys what the lawyers from the Justice Department were selling...what it has listed is basically the tortured reasoning that some lawyers used to claim that torture was legal.

Hi Rati,

What brings you here?

Did someone put out some cheese?

Didn't I just read you complaining about others ad hominem attacks on you? Your credibility slips about another 50 points when you engage in blatant hypocrisy.

 

[MaggieMae]

I'm so glad than I get a chance to reply, unlike the less than honorable 'neg rep' that you applied.

Review.
1. My premise is that the techniques outlined in the NYTimes are far from torture.
2. One of our colleagues, showing the same kind of outrage that you evince, posted about deaths of detainees from these techniques. I showed that this is untrue.
3. I asked for the detainees were were killed, maimed, or hospitalized for extended time due to these techniques. None were provided.
4. Another board member offered that our soldiers who were exposed to these techniques knew, at least, that they weren't going to die. I documented that the detainees also knew that their religion allowed them to give up the intell after a point, a point that they could determine, therefore they also knew that they would not die.
5. One post offered that a particular treaty obviated these techniques. I showed that the treaty only applied to particular countries.
6. And, my main point, that every one of the enhanced techniques mirrors, to a greater or lesser degree, contain some of the 'thousand natural shocks this flesh is heir to' in daily lives.
Now, notice. Folks offer opinion, and defend them. They debate points with evidence. But none of the others, as strongly as they felt, chose the dubious method of 'neg rep'ing. But you.

Here is your punishment. You make an emotional argument? Well, here is my emotional argument. If you have the courage, watch the children of Beslan, and tell my how it compares to the limp, insipid, 'enhanced interrogation techniques.'



What a silly post.

Obviously, the defense you use applies to the other side as well.

Bingo. I think you're starting to get it. However, I don't proclaim my opinions as FACTS, like you do. I rely on a much larger swath of information than apparently you do, but it still lack verifiable truth to every degree because, as I've said, the public at large (including the media) really does not know everything that went on.

 

[MaggieMae]

So what does a history of Islamic barbarism prove? The white man tortured and slaughtered the red man when we decided their land was a nice place to raise families instead of enduring the tyranny of England. While there are admittedly more Muslims who haven't evolved yet even from the 15th Century, our own history of taking what we want through violent means (or getting others to do it for us) makes theirs rather irrelevant.

No, they weren't barbers. Should have read barbarianism.

 

[Iriemon]

I'm so glad than I get a chance to reply, unlike the less than honorable 'neg rep' that you applied.

What's new? I get "less than honorable" neg reps from folks like Dive Con, Yurt regularly.