« Jail the Sick | Main | Perception = Reality »

June 6, 2005
Qu'ran Pissed On, Still Not Flushed

Okay, so now the story goes: The Qu'ran was kicked, wetted, stood upon, and - get this - "inadvertently sprayed with urine", but most assuredly NOT flushed down a toilet.

The Pentagon helpfully released this information at 7:30 on a Friday night. That just happened to be when they got the report finished. Just after they finished watching the evening news.

My first question is a simple one: How the hell do you inadvertently spray anything with urine, let alone a religious text? Were they simply spraying urine around the place and didn't realize a Qu'ran was in the room? Or maybe the mischievous, freedom-hating detainees has fashioned a urinal-shaped Qu'ran. Perhaps the guards were peeing in the toilet, nice and neat, when someone called their name from behind and they whipped around mid-stream only to find someone holding a Qu'ran, which was then quite reasonably used as a pee shield.

There are hundreds of similarly plausible explanations.

The military leaders continue to claim that these are "rare occurrences" and that mishandling the Muslim holy book is "never condoned." Which is not to say that anyone is punished for doing it.

It also does not mean - if you are familiar with the "New English" - that those at the very highest levels of our government have not specifically condoned - even recommended - such behavior.

... religious degradation was a tactic expressly approved by the Department of Defense. A memo signed by Rumsfeld in November 2002 listed "removal of clothing" as a permissible interrogation technique, along with "removal of facial hair," also a technique designed to offend Muslims who wear beards. On December 2, 2002, Rumsfeld authorized interrogation tactics at Guantanamo Bay that included the removal of religious items, forced grooming such as shaving facial hair, and removal of clothing. Indeed, the Defense Department's own investigation of operations at Guantanamo Bay, conducted by Vice Admiral Albert T. Church, found cases in which a female interrogator "touched and spoke to detainees in a sexually suggestive manner in order to incur stress based on the detainees' religious beliefs."

American Prospect

Nor does our not condoning such behavior prevent us from promoting many of the high-ranking officials responsible for sanctioning such abuses.

It's one thing for shit like this to happen. It's quite another for us to 1) lie about it, 2) lie about lying about it, 3) blame the media for it, and 4) promote those responsible for it. How do we think this looks? We go around saying that this "war" is not about religion, and then we do this. Not only do we do it, but we refuse to apologize for it.

We have no credibility, no moral authority, and we are creating more "America-haters" than we can ever deal with.

I watched some jackass on 60 Minutes last night basically justify any and all actions we take as being "necessary in a time of war." The reporter didn't seem interested in asking what exactly this war is against, and when it will ever end. There is no question that a true war sometimes requires playing a little fast and loose with the law. This has always been the case. But these special powers must be carefully considered and explicitly limited in scope and duration, not invoked in the name of a vaguely defined, unending war not against a specific enemy, but against a tactic.

(UPDATE :: Edited for clarity.)

Comments

Previous Comments

With such parsing of the language, you have to wonder if they've ever had sex with that woman, know what the meaning of "is" is, ever inhaled, etc.

I know, I know. It's only wrong when Clinton does it.