Exploiting "Religious Sensitivities" = OK by me

[Exposer]

This scandal of prisoner abuse in Iraq has brought forward an interesting issue. Aside from allegations of actual, wanton abuse, something I have noticed, and have no problem with, is that the U.S. seems to be quite clever and ruthless in exploiting Islamic sensitivities during interrogations.

First let me point out this article, and then I will comment.

Iraqi Prisoner Details Abuse by Americans

By SCHEHEREZADE FARAMARZI, Associated Press Writer


NAJAF, Iraq - Dhia al-Shweiri spent several stints in Baghdad's notorious Abu Ghraib prison, twice under Saddam Hussein's rule and once under American. He prefers Saddam's torture to the humiliation of being stripped naked by his American guards, he said Sunday in an interview with The Associated Press.

America's top general, Gen. Richard Myers, said Sunday there was no evidence of "systematic abuse" and the actions of "just a handful" have unfairly tainted all American forces.

However, Amnesty International said it has uncovered a "pattern of torture" of Iraqi prisoners by coalition troops, and called for an independent investigation into the claims of abuse.

The 30-year-old al-Shweiri, who used to work in a fabric shop, is a die-hard fighter in the al-Mahdi Army, the fanatic militia of a Shiite Muslim cleric who has vowed to take on the Americans.

Al-Shweiri said that while jailed by Saddam's regime, he was electrocuted, beaten and hung from the ceiling with his hands tied behind his back.

"But that's better than the humiliation of being stripped naked," he said. "Shoot me here," he added, pointing between his eyes, "but don't do this to us."


||snip||


Al-Shweiri said he was not surprised to see TV images of smiling U.S. soldiers posing by naked, hooded inmates who, in one photograph, were piled in a human pyramid.

Al-Shweiri, who was arrested by the Americans in October, said he was asked to take off his clothes only once and for about 15 minutes.

"I thought they wanted me to change into the red prison uniform, so I took off my clothes, down to my underwear. Then he asked me to take off my underwear. I started arguing with him but in the end he made me take off my underwear," said al-Shweiri, who was too embarrassed to go into too much detail.

He said he and six other prisoners — all hooded — had to face the wall and bend over a little as they put their hands on the wall.

"They made us stand in a way that I am ashamed to describe. They came to look at us as we stood there. They knew this would humiliate us," he said, adding that he was not sodomized.

"They were trying to humiliate us, break our pride. We are men. It's OK if they beat me. Beatings don't hurt us, it's just a blow. But no one would want their manhood to be shattered," he said.

"They wanted us to feel as though we were women, the way women feel and this is the worst insult, to feel like a woman," al-Shweiri said.

Article

I would have a little more sympathy to complaints about violating "cultural" sensitivies, perhaps (although not much more), but as an athiest, I have absolutely no problem at all with our government using our enemies' hangups based on their fraudulent religions to extract information from them.

I have read stories about beautiful, blonde female interrogators in Afghanistan being brought in to point at and laugh at the genitals of hardcore Islamic fighters. Again, I have zero problems with that, especially if it is effective in making them "break" to reveal important information.

Like this clown in the article said, for him, it was worse than a beating, but yet exploiting religious hangups is perfectly legal.

Thoughts? Opinions?

 

[clk]

I would have a little more sympathy to complaints about violating "cultural" sensitivies, perhaps (although not much more), but as an athiest, I have absolutely no problem at all with our government using our enemies' hangups based on their fraudulent religions to extract information from them.

Why do you have a problem exploiting cultural sensitivities but not religous? Also, in many countries, culture and religion are interwined so if you are violating one, then you are likely violating the other as well.

I understand your point about religion, you said you're OK with exploting religous sensitivities because religion is fradulent. However, there's also alot of cultural stuff that is pretty silly. Suppose that there is a culture where it is highly, highly offensive for one to show their middle finger to someone else (even more offensive than it is in the US). Its pretty silly and arbitrary. Would you be OK exploiting that? Even though it is a cultural sensitivity?

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Considering that the current goals of the US in Iraq is to win the trust of the Iraqi people and to stabilise the country, you would think that these dimwits would be a little more careful in how they treat the Iraqi people. They probably don't worry about it too much (court martials aside) because there are always morons like Exposer who validate their beliefs.

Doesn't worry me, mind you. It isn't my country's government that looks more foolish as the Iraqi situation grows more untenable; my country's tax dollars being wasted; or my country's soldiers being shot dead.

 

[Exposer]

Mr Manifesto, you called me a "moron", why? You disagree with my opinion? Do you think exploiting religious sensitivities should be off limits?

 

[Mr Manifesto]

I think you're a moron because you seem to think that the American army can do whatever it wants in Iraq. You are forgetting two things:

1) The Americans are an invading army, whose right to do so is very dubious at best
2) The Americans are trying to win the trust and respect of the Iraqis.

So, in this instance, yes I think exploiting religious sensitivities should be off-limits. When your country gets into a just war, talk to me about the issue then.

 

[Exposer]

Whatever. You are quite rude, and you clearly have an agenda outside of discussing whether religious sensitivities in general should be respected with regard to interrogation techniques.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Please accept my apologies for my rudeness. I would edit my posts, but I'll keep them there to maintain the record.

I'm hacked off because I'm tired of seeing human beings being treated like dirt.

 

[Earthborn]

Whatever. You are quite rude, and you clearly have an agenda outside of discussing whether religious sensitivities in general should be respected with regard to interrogation techniques.

Of course he has. Everybody does.
And yes, he's a bit rude. Not as much as he can be though.

But among the rudeness he made an excellent argument, which you don't adress. I will repeat it in case you have missed it and clarify it a bit.

The Americans are trying to win the hearts and minds of the people in Iraq, to make it more positive towards the US and democracy. If you do that, it may not be such a smashing idea to use cultural or religious sensitivities as interogation techniques, because the people who are not being interogated might get the impression that the US has no respect for their culture or religion.

It is fairly hard to make friends by insulting people.

 

[Exposer]

Of course he has. Everybody does.
And yes, he's a bit rude. Not as much as he can be though.

But among the rudeness he made an excellent argument, which you don't adress. I will repeat it in case you have missed it and clarify it a bit.

The Americans are trying to win the hearts and minds of the people in Iraq, to make it more positive towards the US and democracy. If you do that, it may not be such a smashing idea to use cultural or religious sensitivities as interogation techniques, because the people who are not being interogated might get the impression that the US has no respect for their culture or religion.

It is fairly hard to make friends by insulting people.

Well I agree with this point to a degree. Yes, we want to win hearts and minds, and what happened in Iraq will work against that in a major way.

What happened in Iraq is disgraceful and goes beyond normal protocol for interrogations. Those people were just playing sick pranks for their own amusement.

Also, photos of interrogations should not be going out into the public domain, for many reasons, including the privacy of those being questioned. In the case in Iraq, things had gone too far and someone blew the whistle (and rightfully so).

But in the example I gave in Afghanistan, having blonde girls laugh at the genitals of hardcore terrorists is not going to raise any flags, because, for one thing, no one even knows it is happening.

It's a matter of weighing the potential value of the information that can be extracted from a subject against any damage the interrogation technique might cause in the counrty that is being occupied.

At Guantanamo, you have to worry about the U.S.'s image around the world. But again, I personally do not have any problem with the U.S. exploiting religious sensitivities in a moral or ethical sense.

Mr Manifesto, thanks for your apology, that was big of you.

 

[Earthborn]

It's a matter of weighing the potential value of the information that can be extracted from a subject against any damage the interrogation technique might cause in the counrty that is being occupied.

The Flawed Calculus of Torture.

While using 'cultural and religious sensitivities' may not be torture, there are a few similarities: you do something bad to someone in the hope you get information. Jef Raskin's (who is eloquent but not an expert) argument works much the same: you will have to do bad things to lots of people on the guess that they may have information, and the information you get will be unreliable. The person you are interogating may want the bad things to stop and say something, whether he actually knows something or not.

So not only is it rude, it may also be counterproductive. What are you going to say to the victims of a terrorist attack that happened because you diverted security resources to a somewhere else because of false information?

 

[Exposer]

The Flawed Calculus of Torture.

While using 'cultural and religious sensitivities' may not be torture, there are a few similarities: you do something bad to someone in the hope you get information. Jef Raskin's (who is eloquent but not an expert) argument works much the same: you will have to do bad things to lots of people on the guess that they may have information, and the information you get will be unreliable. The person you are interogating may want the bad things to stop and say something, whether he actually knows something or not.

So not only is it rude, it may also be counterproductive. What are you going to say to the victims of a terrorist attack that happened because you diverted security resources to a somewhere else because of false information?

First, I am against torture, of course.

I will leave it to the intelligence experts to determine whether information gained through interrogations where the subject has been embarrassed into fessing up is good information or not. I'm sure they know more about this than we do.

But I support the exploitation of "religious sensitivities" if good intelligence can be gained that way, and if it will not cause us greater "PR" damage than the information is worth.

Earthborn, are you arguing to protect the sanctity of "religious sensitivities", or are you just making practical arguments against exploiting them in some cases?

 

[tim]

Totally off topic.
Tempers get frayed here sometimes.
Mr Manifesto calls Exposer a moron.
Exposer protests, and quite politely.
Mr Manifesto accepts the moron comment was unneccessary and rude, so he apologises.
Exposer accepts the apology, and thanks Mr Manifesto for it.

That's how an adult debate should be! It's refreshing to see it, and I commend you both.
It's becoming a bit rare on this forum of late.

 

[Upchurch]

Considering that the current goals of the US in Iraq is to win the trust of the Iraqi people and to stabilise the country, you would think that these dimwits would be a little more careful in how they treat the Iraqi people. They probably don't worry about it too much (court martials aside) because there are always morons like Exposer who validate their beliefs.

Doesn't worry me, mind you. It isn't my country's government that looks more foolish as the Iraqi situation grows more untenable; my country's tax dollars being wasted; or my country's soldiers being shot dead.

[modu]This post has been reported for containing personal attacks. Please note that personal attacks are only against the rules on the Critical Thought board, not the forum in general. No action will be taken at this time.[/modu]

 

[Ladewig]

As tempting as it may be to degrade someone who believes that the worst possible insult is to treat Islam men as Islamic women, I cannot condone such activity. I believe that whatever approach the U.S. takes towards gaining information towards prisoners should be made public (although not necessarily immediately). I cannot accept the U.S. government making a public statement along the lines of "we are using our enemies' hangups based on their fraudulent religions to extract information from them." Whatever information gained would be overshadowed by orders of magnitude by the bad will generated in Muslim countries around the world.

I do condone some of the other things that the U.S. intelligence agence have used. For instance, fooling a prisoner into believing that he has been transferred from U.S. custody to Saudi custody by driving the prisoner through the desert for an hour and then putting him in a cell with U.S. guards dressed in Saudi uniforms.

 

[Suddenly]

First, I am against torture, of course.

Let us start for this point...


Does torture require physical abuse, or is there such a thing as psychological torture? Are fear and pain only considered if they have a physical cause?


Do you believe that whether an action induces massive fear and pain should be measured by what the victim experiences? Some other measure?

I guess what I don't get is that how an act taking advantage of a persons beliefs in order to induce fear, humiliation and mental anguish is somehow not "torture" based on the lack of evidence for those beliefs.

 

[Leif Roar]

Like this clown in the article said, for him, it was worse than a beating, but yet exploiting religious hangups is perfectly legal.

I don't see that the humiliation you referred to involved any particularly religious aspects.

 

[Barkhorn1x]

Umm...

The 30-year-old al-Shweiri, who used to work in a fabric shop, is a die-hard fighter in the al-Mahdi Army, the fanatic militia of a Shiite Muslim cleric who has vowed to take on the Americans.

I wish to point out here that winning this guys heart and mind is probably an impossibility (it doesn't excuse what was done to him mind you).

So what do we have here;
1. A few bad soldiers who did not receive proper supervision played some head games w/ their charges. It IS reprehensible - no doubt about that.
2. The whole sordid mess is coming out now and NO ONE in authority over in Iraq is making any excuses for the perps. and have stated that there will be justice.
3. Al Jazeera and other anti-Western news outlets are using this episode as evidence that the American occupation is evil.
4. Certain posters on this board are close to echoing this line.

Now, having gotten all of that out of the way, my question is, "Do the Iraqi people have the SHORTEST memories on the friken planet?"

It was hardly a year ago that they were in the grip of what can best be described as a murderous regime. If they didn't hate you that much they would put you in the wood chipper head first. Oh, but if they really didn't like you, it would be feet first.

I know, I know...the fact that SH and his sons were 10 times worse does not excuse the acts of these overgrown frat boys and girls. However, a bit of perspective is important - this IS NOT the Mia Le (sp?) massacre all over again.

What is also important is that we don't weep overmuch for Al-Shweiri and his ilk. These ISLAMIC MEN would KILL every Westerner they could if given the chance. They cannot be reasoned with and it is a HUGE mistake to think that they will respond to kindness.

Barkhorn.

 

[Leif Roar]

Re: Umm...

These ISLAMIC MEN would KILL every Westerner they could if given the chance.

Yes, and they also want to steal our women, kill our pets, wreck our cars and seduce our daughters - all just because they're ISLAMIC MEN!

Seriously, though, you realise you were incredibly bigoted and racist with that comment?

 

[Barkhorn1x]

Re: Umm...

Yes, and they also want to steal our women, kill our pets, wreck our cars and seduce our daughters - all just because they're ISLAMIC MEN!

Seriously, though, you realise you were incredibly bigoted and racist with that comment?

Sorry - I missed a qualifier = MILITANT. Better now?

Seriously, though, you realize you are incredibly naive if you think that these people are not at war against the West. And you calling me a bigot and a racist really doesn't change the reality of the situation.

Barkhorn.

 

[Luke T.]

But in the example I gave in Afghanistan, having blonde girls laugh at the genitals of hardcore terrorists is not going to raise any flags, because, for one thing, no one even knows it is happening.

Then how do you know it is happening?