![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
piranhai've been following some of the commentary in response to the new allegations of prisoner abuse in guantanamo bay, and i'd like to collect my responses here.
If only those who continuously condemn aggressive interrogation methods would come up with an alternative that can save as many lives the world will be a better place. Until then there is little choice but to follow centuries old traditions. What has happened to: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Mort, Egypt
what happened to "an eye for an eye" is that many people now realize that it leaves everyone blind. we've also learned that the intelligence gathered through torture does not necessarily save many, if any lives, since people will often say anything under torture, anything that will stop the abuse. people who grew up with abusive parents or who have suffered under an abusive spouse will recognize that reaction immediately: what matters is to tell the abusers what they want to hear in the way they want to hear it. which might not have any relation to the truth. lastly, let's not forget that these people being tortured have not been proven guilty of anything. they have been swept up in the chaos of battle -- and like so many swept up in the chaos of urban protest and riots, some of them are probably only guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. when assessing the treatment of people who have not been formally found guilty by a court of law, don't assume guilt; think about how you would want to be treated if you had accidentally been grabbed off the street.
Does anybody really think that people who are willing to die for their murderous radical beliefs should be accorded a five star hotel accommodation? Frankly, these people are very lucky to be in American custody because those news networks from the Middle Eastern countries should go and ask prisoners in their own countries how they are treated. Julius, Philadelphia US
again with the assumption of guilt here. see above. secondly, just who thinks the prisoners should receive 5-star hotel accomodations? nice strawman you're holding up there. people advancing this argument have obviously never been to a maximum security prison. do go, and then get back to me as to whether that's something you'd like to experience for a year without being charged. nevermind being left in chains without the means of a toilet for days. thirdly, do you really want to live in a country that tries to catch up to the human rights violations of countries stuck in the dark ages? do you have no pride in enlightenment? maybe not -- then i'd ask you to put yourself in the place of an innocently accused person. how do you feel now about such treatment? does it make you feel better about the cigarette burns on your face to know they were applied by US interrogators instead of saudi arabian ones?
If only those who continuously condemn aggressive interrogation methods would come up with an alternative that can save as many lives the world will be a better place. Until then there is little choice but to follow centuries old traditions. What has happened to: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Mort, Egypt
what happened to "an eye for an eye" is that many people now realize that it leaves everyone blind. we've also learned that the intelligence gathered through torture does not necessarily save many, if any lives, since people will often say anything under torture, anything that will stop the abuse. people who grew up with abusive parents or who have suffered under an abusive spouse will recognize that reaction immediately: what matters is to tell the abusers what they want to hear in the way they want to hear it. which might not have any relation to the truth. lastly, let's not forget that these people being tortured have not been proven guilty of anything. they have been swept up in the chaos of battle -- and like so many swept up in the chaos of urban protest and riots, some of them are probably only guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. when assessing the treatment of people who have not been formally found guilty by a court of law, don't assume guilt; think about how you would want to be treated if you had accidentally been grabbed off the street.
Does anybody really think that people who are willing to die for their murderous radical beliefs should be accorded a five star hotel accommodation? Frankly, these people are very lucky to be in American custody because those news networks from the Middle Eastern countries should go and ask prisoners in their own countries how they are treated. Julius, Philadelphia US
again with the assumption of guilt here. see above. secondly, just who thinks the prisoners should receive 5-star hotel accomodations? nice strawman you're holding up there. people advancing this argument have obviously never been to a maximum security prison. do go, and then get back to me as to whether that's something you'd like to experience for a year without being charged. nevermind being left in chains without the means of a toilet for days. thirdly, do you really want to live in a country that tries to catch up to the human rights violations of countries stuck in the dark ages? do you have no pride in enlightenment? maybe not -- then i'd ask you to put yourself in the place of an innocently accused person. how do you feel now about such treatment? does it make you feel better about the cigarette burns on your face to know they were applied by US interrogators instead of saudi arabian ones?
no subject
on 2004-12-22 00:12 (UTC)Maybe Julius would like to spend the night in one of them some time. Wish I could arrange it.
no subject
on 2004-12-22 00:30 (UTC)It's impossible to understand that we want dignity and democracy for a Muslim nation when the US government has such a huge contempt for Islam.
no subject
on 2004-12-22 00:42 (UTC)no subject
on 2004-12-22 01:59 (UTC)Anger is not good for my prose style: when I first wrote that paragraph, all the sentences began with conjunctions. That's excessive, so I rewrote it slightly.
no subject
on 2004-12-22 04:20 (UTC)I guess we've decided to use the Israeli playbook: trample people's civil rights, wait until they lash out, then declare their response as justification for your initial actions and then crack down further and repeat. I guess it's a rational move if you belong to the party that has a greater perception of churning out War Presidents.