It's hard to imagine the desecration of the Quran at Gitmo being any worse

[bigtree]

Urination, water ballons, etc.

This is sickening.

How does the administration get away with it's earlier lies about the validity of the Newsweek story. Their denials amount to an attempted cover-up.

I personally think Muslims are more than justified in their outrage. What if it was a U.S. soldier's bible?

I'm more than ashamed at the conduct of our country. I'm deeply hurt and outraged. I wonder how much I will take before I snap and throw myself at these fascist clowns in a massive act of civil disobediance. I guess I'm so ashamed because I haven't yet.


here's the account by ABC news:

U.S. Confirms Urine Touched Quran at Gitmo

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=818918

WASHINGTON Jun 4, 2005 — U.S. military officials say no guard at the Guantanamo Bay prison for terror suspects flushed a detainee's Quran down the toilet, but they disclosed that a Muslim holy book was splashed with urine. In other newly disclosed incidents, a detainee's Quran was deliberately kicked and another's was stepped on.

On March 25, a detainee complained to guards that "urine came through an air vent" and splashed on him and his Quran. A guard admitted he was at fault, but a report released Friday evening offering new details about Quran mishandling incidents did not make clear whether the guard intended the result.

In another confirmed incident, water balloons thrown by prison guards caused an unspecified number of Qurans to get wet, and in a confirmed but ambiguous case, a two-word obscenity was written in English on the inside cover of a Quran.

The findings, released after normal business hours Friday evening and after the major TV networks had aired their evening news programs, are among the results of an investigation last month by Brig. Gen. Jay Hood, the commander of the detention center in Cuba. A Newsweek magazine report later retracted that a U.S. soldier had flushed one Guantanamo Bay detainee's Quran down a toilet triggered the investigation.

[babylonsister]

1. "I guess I'm so ashamed because I haven't yet."

bigtree, you and me both. That says it all. We're angry; so when do we let the rest of this country know how angry, and will it accomplish anything?

[bigtree]

2. I'm hanging on economically by a slim thread

and I have to take into account how a potential detention would affect my wife and family ( my two adult sons are back home without a place to live. Yet, I don't know how long I can sit by and let our country, and our reputations throughout the world be trashed by these duplicitous liars and criminals in the White House.

I'm really burning.

[danalytical]

3. I'm going to hurt some feeling here....

I'll say it....

I don't care. If they are truly interogating and getting valuable information from these guys by humiliating their religion. I don't care. I don't like the idea of this inciting riots. I don't like that they have been physically torturing people. But when it comes to psychological torture to keep our soldiers safe. I'm all for it. I don't think we should be in Iraq in the first place, but if we can stop the death of my friends over there by pissing on the Quran, go for it. I don't care if its a bible or Quran or whatever religion they are humiliating. Its unfortunate that its come to this, but we are fighting a war, and we need to get intel to keep our guys safe. If they were peeing on the Quran in Baghdad square for fun, thats different than doing it to break into a soldiers mind for information. Flame away!

By the way I am an ex green party member, that switched to the Democratic party tp help oust Bush in 2004. So I am not a lurking neo con or anything like that. I just don't like political correctness all the time.

[realFedUp]

4. this action just creates more terror

and those who will react to it. It's not
necessary to incite more violence
by disrespecting someone's religion...
they might ask the Dr. Phil question:
"Is this working for you?"

[tx_dem41]

5. Assuming of course by using torture (of any means) they are getting..

accurate information. Any ethical interrogator will tell you that torture will often result in inaccurate information which is worse than getting no information at all.

[danalytical]

7. possibly

One of their techniques is humiliation. They are trying to break these men's spirits. In arab and muslim cultures, humiliation is the worst possible thing that can happen, and when you mix that with religious humiliation you might get a man willing to tell you what he knows in order to stop the humiliation and desecration of the holy book. I just don't care that a man who blew up my neighbor is angry that an intelligence officer is peeing on his holy book. I know, its a stray from my usual philosophy, but these guys aren't playing tag you know. They are killing each other, and its mostly our fault for electing a bunch of crooks that put pur guys there. But they have t deal with it now, not us. If they are getting good intel, I say keep at it. If the intel is bad which is entirely possible because of the method, then lets try something else.

[ET Awful]

9. No, if you desecrate the Quran, you create a prisoner who wants to

kill you more than he already did. You don't create someone who'll magically want to tell you everything they already no.

What the hell do you mean "our fault"? I sure as hell didn't elect these bastards, nor did anyone here.

Using your methodology you create more terrorists. People that would never have thought of carrying out attacks against Americans will change their tune drastically when they hear of the Quran being desecrated.

[danalytical]

18. our fault

We may have pulled for different candidates, but we are still Americans and the Republicans won. Its may not be our chosen representation, but they still represent us and send our friends and family to war. So yes it is our fault in a way, we didn't win. Or we were cheated, either way the US is in Iraq.

[ET Awful]

22. No, it is not "our" fault any more than the 9/11 attacks are the fault

of all Muslims.

Attempting to lay the blame for atrocities on the entire group from which those committing the atrocies arose is misplaced and ill-informed.

It's not "our" fault that Bush is in office. It's not the fault of a random Muslim in the world that Osama bin Laden despises the US enough to kill thousands of innocents.

Your sweeping stereotyping shows your complete lack of in-depth analysis into the entire situation.

[danalytical]

23. thats YOUR opinion

It was not a stereotype, it is an internationally recognized body called a "country". We may not all agree, but we are all represented by our President. Maybe if the South and North were different countries we wouldn't be in this mess, but we aren't.

[ET Awful]

26. It's not an opinion, it's a fact.

If someone mugs you and steals your wallet, it's not your fault, it's the fault of the criminal.

If someone steals an election, it's not "our" fault, it's the fault of the thieves.

So no, it is not "our" fault.

[danalytical]

28. that has nothing to do with the debate.

We are a country and a country does have official representation. We as a people chose that representation, and unfortunately we lost our voice. Now they are speaking for us.

If you get mugged by a guy that you have been using as slave labor for his whole life, that changes the circumstances. We have done things around the world that created this hatred of us. Then we went attacked a country not involved and pursued our interests even more ruthlessly. So yes we are certainly part of the equation. It takes two to tango.

[bigtree]

6. I'm not about flaming

but I understand that we have tortured and detained innocents there for years. Where is this valuable info? Where is bin Laden?

We recently released dozens from Gitmo who were detained and tortured without charges. My question would be, "When do we accept our own role as enemy combatants? We have killed tens of thousands more innocents than were killed on 9-11 with our campaign of retribution and imperialism. I personally don't fear the people whose lives we have taken and those whose lives we have thouroughly and willfully disrupted in our superior arrogance. I would heartily agree with anyone who asserts that the U.S. is the most dangerous threat to world peace and our present administration, with their orchestrated campaign of terror and complicity, is one of the primary causes of the animosity that has driven these displaced Iraqis and other Muslims to violent expressions of nationalism and self-determination and defense.

Our soldiers will be more than safe when Bush abandons his manufactured mandate to conquer and brings them home to their families and loved ones. As they perform the illegal tasks that Bush has mandated they put themselves at risk of what I see as mostly justifiable retaliation. We would do no less under a foreign occupation. There is no clear reason why we should trust the new Iraqi government to direct our efforts there in a manner that upholds even the most basic precepts of our own democratic priciples. Nor should we expect that Karsai's new government in Afghanistan will uphold what we here in the U.S. consider to be instigations of true democracy. Both countries are at the mercy of our occupation, amounting to propped up military juntas masquerading as elected governments.

Ther is NO justification for torture. It doesn't even work, as the victims will eventually tell their captors anything they want to hear to avoid more harm. It's sickening and moronic. Not what I would expect from our great nation, which was to be guiless in its unassailable defenses, not so insecure that it has to resort to abusing folks in our privieged fear.

Nothing about our mission there is legal or moral. All of our efforts amount to oppression of the Iraqis

[ET Awful]

8. So how does torturing someone from Afghanistan that was captured

3 years ago keep soldiers safe?

Sorry, your argument is illogical.

If you desecrate the Quran, you aren't going to get useful information by doing so, you're going to piss off the person you're interrogating and they're not going to tell you shit.

First, desecrating a Quran doesn't keep soldiers safe, it inflames passion in the Islamic world and creates more people that want to harm soldiers.

Second, it's contrary to the Geneva Convention.

Third, it's non-productive and doesn't result in obtaining good information.

You don't know much about Islam do you?

[msongs]

12. people insecure about their own beliefs get all worked up over

inconsequential actions. a koran like a bible is only ink on paper. however both have been used to justify the murder of hundreds of millions of people. so if one of those books is abused......lets murder millions more.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/liberaltshirts.htm

[ET Awful]

13. To YOU a Quran is only ink on paper, to a Muslim, this is not the case

Talk to some Muslims and find out.

Until you have done so, you have no clue what you're talking about.

[danalytical]

19. I don't care

If they piss on the bible to get information. .....ZZZZZIIIIIIIIPPPPPP......

[LynnTheDem]

20. Fine.

That's YOU.

What is the thing YOU VALUE most? Your child? Spouse? Parents? Siblings?

Let's have you detained and have that thing YOU value most pissed on, and see if you give a care.

[bigtree]

15. To most Muslims there is no seperation between religion and culture

The word of the Quran is law in most of these countries. In the U.S., our religion is not law. It is, however, used as a convienient justification for acts of discrimination and exclusion. There is a sense of moral superiority over others and their own religions which may differ from our Christian fundamentalist's.

There is a misunderstanding of the acts of violence that seemingly come from an adherence to the Muslim religion. These violent actions are not done in isolation. They are a response to the provocation of our military expansionism that is directed at these majority Muslim countries. They are mostly violent expressions of nationalisn and self-determination, and defense.

Our actions, on the other hand are disproportionately related to one attack on our shores which was orchestrated by one man and a handful of followers. Our response, cossetted by Bush with numerous quotes about his mission from God, has been a military imperialism that has invaded and destroyed mosques, ignored admonitions to leave holy lands undisturbed, and mockery of a culture of Muslims whose lives are emeshed with their religion.

These vile acts against the Quran that have been described did not occur in a vacumn of understanding, rather, they were orchestrated, I believe, with a conscious hatred and fear of Islam, alongside I'll bet, an arrogant attitude of the inevitability and superiority of Christianity.

Yet, it was merely men who desecrated our shores with their violence on 9-11, not a religion as Bush and his cronies would have us believe. He kills innocents in the name of God, as do some Muslims. One difference is that their's is usually expressed in law, ours, in a lifestyle choice.

[LynnTheDem]

17. That is YOUR opinion on the Koran. It is NOT the opinion of others.

Same re the bible; over history countless tens of thousands of people have willingly died rather than recant their beliefs or give up their bibles.

THEIR opinion is that "only ink on paper" is more important than their own lives.

It doesn't what you & I feel about bibles and Q'uorans being just pen & ink, what matters is how those being targeted feel. The reason US troops did desecrate the Q'uoran was exactly because it was known how much the Q'uoran meant to Muslims.

American troops took what they KNEW was so highly valued by these helpless detainess, and they DELIBERATELY and KNOWINGLY desecrated BECAUSE it was so valued by those people. People who could do nothing whatsoever in defense.

That's wrong, that's sick, that's indecent, that's inhumane. That's not what America says America stands for.

[CJCRANE]

25. Yes, but unfortunately

in this world there are about 4 to 5 billion people who follow a major religion or are part of a culture that incorporates a major religion (e.g. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism).

So just for sheer practicality it's not really a wise idea for a government official to desecrate holy books.

[danalytical]

21. you make some good points

However they do transfer new people to Gitmo, as far as I can tell they transfer important "enemy combatants" there. Not just from Afghanistan but from Iraq as well. Maybe not, but thats my understanding.

The thing is though, you don't know if they are getting good intel or bad, unless of course you work for the CIA? We can speculate, but we don't "know".

I work 5 days a week with Muslims, that doesn't make me an expert but I am familiar. If the Taliban were peeing on the bible I wouldn't care, I just don't. I know that "they" do care when we do it, and that can and has stirred up unrest and riot. Like I said I am not happy about that, but I don't care if they use the Quran/Koran in interrogation, and I don't care if they use naked ladies either. If these people are innocent I care. If they are truly Taliban or Al Queda I don't. I don't believe we should torture them or anyone else physically, especially not for revenge or sport. But for purpose I'm not 100% against it. BTW what do the Geneva conventions rules say about religious matters? I truly am not familiar.

Oh and for the record. I DO support our efforts in Afghanistan. I wish we sent more troops there and captured every single member of Al Queda and the Taliban. I am not thrilled about our puppet regime in Afghanistan, or the lack of comittment to the people. But no matter who was in office at the time, I would have expected a swift reaction to the actions of 911. Iraq I am 100% against our involvement. But I certainly supported UN efforts to keep Saddam from doing har to his people or his neighbors.

[LynnTheDem]

10. The Geneva Conventions are not "political correctness".

International law is not "political correctness".

Respect, decency and morality are not "political correctness".

Lowering oneself to the level of the worst of scum is not "political correctness".

Endangering all Americans, troops included, by ignoring the Geneva Conventions, and international law, and human decency, is not "political correctness".

And Gitmo has nothing to do with Iraq.

[bigtree]

14. I did muddle Iraq and Gitmo Lynn

but they are intertwined because of this administration's crusade against the Muslims who would resist our invasion of their lands and our blasphamous occupations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Bush's insistence that we fight his 'war on terror' in Iraq (". . . so we don't have to fight it here." as he has said.)

Despite our rout of the Taliban in Afghanistan, I still see our invasion and occupation there as wrong. I don't think the Taliban had any more control over the actions and movements of bin Laden than Saddam Hussein did. I think 9-11 was a pretext for the Bush cabal's longstanding ambitions to dominate that region for greed and power.

So the Afghan prisoners in Gitmo are related to Iraq as Bush's war against Muslim nations and their citizens encompasses both countries with its wrongheaded logic and justifications for invasion.

[LynnTheDem]

16. You and I are in absolute agreement re our occupation of Afghanistan.

And that puts us with the world majority; wish more Americans realized the overwhelming world opinion was opposed to our actions on Afghanistan. :)

And I understand what you're saying re Iraq & Gitmo.

IMO there is never, for any reason, any excuse for torture or humiliation of anyone for any reason whatsoever.

I believe either you (royal "you") always act in accordance with human decency & laws...or you're an indecent criminal.

No exceptions.

[Vyan]

11. The Problem Is...

They aren't getting good Intel. You push someone far enough, they'll tell you anything you want to hear - whether it's true or not! This is why coerced testimony isn't allowed in a court of law, it can't be trusted.

We trusted information from an informant named "Curveball", who it turns out was an alcoholic with a vendetta against Saddam - and the result was we went to War to remove weapons of mass destruction that simply weren't there. How many red-herrings has this kind of treatment produced?

What you need to get accurate information from anyone is to either appeal to their guilty conscience (which doesn't work with someone who feels completely justified and sanctified in their actions) or to gain their trust. But what we're doing at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and Bagram is a long way from trustworthy.

I understand the "get tough" ethic, that we need to strip off the kid-gloves and do what we need to do... It just doesn't work that way. We aren't gonna get that last minute admission through extraordinary means, and Agent Jack Bauer of CTU isn't going to save the day with some ingenious (and highly illegal) scheme.

Vyan

[CJCRANE]

24. But aren't most

of the guys in Gitmo from/picked up in Afghanistan/Pakistan? If so, they probably don't have a clue about anything in Iraq, and from most accounts a lot of them are either innocent or just Taliban foot-soldiers who don't have any in-depth information.

[danalytical]

27. thats the scary part

If thats the case, then it doesn't make a wholel lot of sense keeping them there or wasting time on them.