By DONNA CASSATA, 05/17/11 09:25 PM ET
WASHINGTON -- Former Sen. Rick Santorum said Tuesday that Sen. John McCain, who spent 5 1/2 years enduring brutal treatment at the hands of his North Vietnamese captors, doesn't know how effective waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques can be. The Republican presidential contender insisted the tactics led the United States to al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.
McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a speech last week that waterboarding al-Qaida's No. 3 leader, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, did not provide information that led to bin Laden's compound in Pakistan.
McCain said he asked CIA Director Leon Panetta for the facts, and that the hunt for bin Laden did not begin with fresh information from Mohammed. In fact, the name of bin Laden's courier, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, came from a detainee held in another country.
"Not only did the use of enhanced interrogation techniques on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed not provide us with key leads on bin Laden's courier, Abu Ahmed, it actually produced false and misleading information," McCain said.
In an interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt on Tuesday, Santorum said McCain was wrong.
"Everything I've read shows that we would not have gotten this information as to who this man was if it had not been gotten information from people who were subject to enhanced interrogation," Santorum said. "And so this idea that we didn't ask that question while Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was being waterboarded, he (McCain) doesn't understand how enhanced interrogation works.
"I mean, you break somebody, and after they're broken, they become cooperative. And that's when we got this information. And one thing led to another, and led to another, and that's how we ended up with bin Laden," said Santorum.
He added: "Maybe McCain has better information than I do, but from what I've seen, it seems pretty clear that but for these cooperative witnesses who were cooperative as a result of enhanced interrogations, we would not have gotten bin Laden."
McCain, the 2008 Republican president nominee, said his information came from Panetta. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the chairwoman of the Senate intelligence committee, backed up McCain's assessment that waterboarding of Mohammed did not produce the tip that led to bin Laden.
Brooke Buchanan, a spokeswoman for McCain, said Tuesday she would not dignify Santorum's comments with a response.
In the House, Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., the chairman of the Intelligence committee, said the Justice Department should stop investigating CIA interrogators for alleged abuse of detainees under the Bush administration because their work was a "vital part of the chain" that led to the successful raid on bin Laden's hideout.
The Justice Department had no comment.
AP Intelligence Writer Kimberly Dozier contributed to this report.
Note from Leafar: As a Democrat, I pray to God that Rick Santorum becomes the Republican's Presidental nominee, and I hope he picks Michelle Backman as his Vice President.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Santorum's right, as McCarthy points out at length.
Of course, since Eric Holder agrees that EIT isn't torture...
Santorum's right, as McCarthy points out at length.
Of course, since Eric Holder agrees that EIT isn't torture...
No, Rick Santorum isn't right. He is as wrong as you can get.
No, Rick Santorum isn't right. He is as wrong as you can get.Santorum's right, as McCarthy points out at length.
Of course, since Eric Holder agrees that EIT isn't torture...
+1
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Holder points to EIT as part of the 'moasic of sources' used to catch OBL.
And of course let's not forget Panetta himself saying EIT led to Bin Laden. So McCain doesn't understand Panetta either.
Would you rather we treat the detainees at Gitmo per Geneva?
Yes.
Absolutely. Especially since you signed the bloody thing.
Torture is not something a civilized nation can stoop to, without ceasing to be civilized.
Meh.
Once a guy thinks its ok to recruit folks, often teens or younger, to strap bombs to themselves and kill civilians just to sow terror, they've willingly surrendered any claim to humanity they may have once had.
Terrorists should not be afforded Geneva protection.
They are not enemy combatants, they are less than human.
We aren't stooping to their level, we're rising to the expectations their behavior warrants.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Yes.
Absolutely. Especially since you signed the bloody thing.
Torture is not something a civilized nation can stoop to, without ceasing to be civilized.
"Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs."
Fine, under Geneva, the rights and protections of Geneva extend to signatories and those who follow the rules of Geneva.
"The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Conventions."
KSM and co do not follow the rules, so we're not bound to give them any protections of Geneva. So we can do whatever we want, including EIT.
Fortunately we're civilized, so we imprison them, treat their (alleged) religion with respect, allow Red Cross visits, etc.
Taking them out and shooting them in the back of the head would be Geneva compliant. We're better than that.
So Sissyl, why do you want to kill them where ever we find them?
|
|
Holder points to EIT as part of the 'moasic of sources' used to catch OBL.
And of course let's not forget Panetta himself saying EIT led to Bin Laden. So McCain doesn't understand Panetta either.
Would you rather we treat the detainees at Gitmo per Geneva?
Gitmo?
Well that's just swell, Ma.
America doesn't torture. Period. I thought we stood for something better.
|
|
Yes.
Absolutely. Especially since you signed the bloody thing.
Torture is not something a civilized nation can stoop to, without ceasing to be civilized.
"Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs."
Fine, under Geneva, the rights and protections of Geneva extend to signatories and those who follow the rules of Geneva.
"The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Conventions."
KSM and co do not follow the rules, so we're not bound to give them any protections of Geneva. So we can do whatever we want, including EIT.
Fortunately we're civilized, so we imprison them, treat their (alleged) religion with respect, allow Red Cross visits, etc.
Taking them out and shooting them in the back of the head would be Geneva compliant. We're better than that.
So Sissyl, why do you want to kill them where ever we find them?
Ah, no!
Not them!
Them and their (alleged) religion!
So, how do you 'break' somebody's spirit if it's not torture?
So, how do you 'break' somebody's spirit if it's not torture?
{pokes the kobold with a hot iron} Why didn't you eat all your broccoli for dinner? Your dad slaved -- literally -- all day to put food on the table for you.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Ah, no!
Not them!
Them and their (alleged) religion!
Geraint,
We read constantly that Al-Q Doesn't represent Islam. This has always bothered me.
If it's not Islam they follow, then why do we treat them with Islamic customs?
I mean if we had Buddhists blowing up in Japan, would we call them Buddhists?
I'm (nominally) a Lutheran. But I'm also a self admitted henothesitic heritic. If the ELCA actually had rules on that kind of thing, I'd not expect to take communion in an ELCA church. So why, if these terrorists don't represent Islam, do we treat them with Islamic customs?
Rand Simberg makes similar arguments.
Or to put it another way, I suggested on FB that I hoped they wrapped OBL's body in bacon before it was dumped into the ocean. If he's not a 'devout Muslim' then it shouldn't matter if he's bacon flavoured before dropping him in the ocean. If he is a 'devout Muslim', then the religion already is against the west, per his statements.
...Fortunately we're civilized, so we imprison them, treat their (alleged) religion with respect, allow Red Cross visits, etc...
You can make your points without taking a dig at Islam.
...We read constantly that Al-Q Doesn't represent Islam. This has always bothered me.
If it's not Islam they follow, then why do we treat them with Islamic customs?... So why, if these terrorists don't represent Islam, do we treat them with Islamic customs?
...Or to put it another way, I suggested on FB that I hoped they wrapped OBL's body in bacon before it was dumped into the ocean. If he's not a 'devout Muslim' then it shouldn't matter if he's bacon flavoured before dropping him in the ocean. If he is a 'devout Muslim', then the religion already is against the west, per his statements.
We're not being respectful to the alleged terrorists; we are showing respect to the religion and its true followers. If nothing else, it helps keep the US from making more religious terrorists.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
...Fortunately we're civilized, so we imprison them, treat their (alleged) religion with respect, allow Red Cross visits, etc...You can make your points without taking a dig at Islam.
Ambrosia, as I said above, it's not a dig at Islam, it's a dig at the terrorists. Unless you're saying that Islam really does endorse flying airplanes into buildings and beheading reporters?
Edit: If you *are* saying that, then why are you slamming all Muslims?
...Fortunately we're civilized, so we imprison them, treat their (alleged) religion with respect, allow Red Cross visits, etc...You can make your points without taking a dig at Islam.Ambrosia, as I said above, it's not a dig at Islam, it's a dig at the terrorists. Unless you're saying that Islam really does endorse flying airplanes into buildings and beheading reporters?
Edit: If you *are* saying that, then why are you slamming all Muslims?
Matt, would it be fine if I painted all Baptists with the same brush as Fred Phelps? He calls himself and his followers Baptists too.
Looks like Matt had some regretful wording. Calling Islam an 'alleged' religion generally refers to the religion, and not the worshippers.
Also, I'm fairly certain nobody was laying off the terrorists. They were waterboarding them. Subjecting them to physical pain. If that's able to break their spirits, I don't see how it isn't torture.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Matt, would it be fine if I painted all Baptists with the same brush as Fred Phelps? He calls himself and his followers Baptists too....Fortunately we're civilized, so we imprison them, treat their (alleged) religion with respect, allow Red Cross visits, etc...You can make your points without taking a dig at Islam.Ambrosia, as I said above, it's not a dig at Islam, it's a dig at the terrorists. Unless you're saying that Islam really does endorse flying airplanes into buildings and beheading reporters?
Edit: If you *are* saying that, then why are you slamming all Muslims?
And Most Baptists disown them.
That's my point. I can allege myself a balerina, but it doesn't make it so, and I'd not expect anyone to seriously treat me as one. Al Q can call themselves Muslim, but if their beliefs fly in the face of Islam, why do we treat them like they are?
Well, because they say so. Really, it's a totally separate religion. But the way they treat their dead hasn't changed.
EDIT: Hang on. You aren't a ballerina?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Looks like Matt had some regretful wording. Calling Islam an 'alleged' religion generally refers to the religion, and not the worshippers.
Also, I'm fairly certain nobody was laying off the terrorists. They were waterboarding them. Subjecting them to physical pain. If that's able to break their spirits, I don't see how it isn't torture.
KQ, you said that if it breaks their spirits, that's torture. I gave examples of other things that 'break people's spirits'.
I'm pretty sure Arnie broke the spirit of Maria Schriver and her kids. Did he 'torture' her? No, he just proved he's an ass.
The EIT we did was carefully monitored, non-lethal, and yes, broke their spirits. It's also the same kind of 'technique' we use in our own SERE training. We don't call it 'torturing' our own troops.
And yes, it may be a bad turn of phrase. I was trying to say they allege to be Muslim. It doesn't make it so.
(Obligatory 'some of my best friends are Muslim' comment. Well no they aren't. But I've met some pretty Devout Muslims (who weren't trying to blow me up) and carried on conversations, helped them find the right direction to pray in a waiting room, grabbed furnature to make it easier for an old woman to kneel and pray, etc. I *don't* think all Muslims are out to blow me up. Islam just needs to grow out of it's 'angry childhood' like Christianity (mostly) has.)
But we don't waterboard our troops until their spirits break. I feel that torture is defined by two things: Steady pain, and psychological damage. Waterboarding sounds like it has both.
I give this thread 30 minutes...
I give this thread 30 minutes...
Erm....
*Ahem*2 hours, 54 minutes ago
Tough luck, man. Now pay up.
I give this thread 30 minutes...Erm....
*Ahem*
2 hours, 54 minutes agoTough luck, man. Now pay up.
...from the time I posted, Mr. McSmarty pants.
27 minutes...
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
But we don't waterboard our troops until their spirits break. I feel that torture is defined by two things: Steady pain, and psychological damage. Waterboarding sounds like it has both.
*If* they make it through the full SERE. Same thing goes for SEAL training and other Special Forces. They do their damnedest to break the men's spirit and morale, and those who wash out are broken.
*shrug* We can go back and forth, KC. I don't feel it's torture. We've had three administrations who don't feel it's torture. We *do* punish people who use any form of EIT for kicks, look at Abu Ghraib. (Well don't look to closely, sometimes we ask them to run for the Senate)
And yes, it may be a bad turn of phrase. I was trying to say they allege to be Muslim. It doesn't make it so.
Matt, as I said above... we are showing respect to the religion and its true followers. If they claimed to be Catholic, or Jewish, or Lutheran, we should still accord their professed religious practice respect.
And most of the suspected terrorists have never received an actual trial. Is it still ok to not respect their professed religious beliefs when we only suspect them of being a terrorist?
And most of the suspected terrorists have never received an actual trial. Is it still ok to not respect their professed religious beliefs when we only suspect them of being a terrorist?
If they weren't guilty, they wouldn't be suspects, now would they?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
And yes, it may be a bad turn of phrase. I was trying to say they allege to be Muslim. It doesn't make it so.Matt, as I said above... we are showing respect to the religion and its true followers. If they claimed to be Catholic, or Jewish, or Lutheran, we should still accord their professed religious practice respect.
And most of the suspected terrorists have never received an actual trial. Is it still ok to not respect their professed religious beliefs when we only suspect them of being a terrorist?
I don't know there is an exact line between respect and deference. We *do* respect the professed religion of the detainees at Gitmo. From serving Halal meals to having arrows pointing to Mecca, to calls to prayer, we give them a large degree of lattitude. We also don't EIT everyone who walks in there. We're not slipping them bacon bits and tossing their books into the john, and we're giving them a lot more respect than we receive, even from some of our nominal allies.
Heck look at the steps we've taken for the Weigars (sp?) we've taken to make sure they're *not* killed or disappeared.
|
|
It never ceases to amaze me the arguments made in support of "EIT". The use of pain to extract information is at the base of the definition of torture; lethality is not a qualifier for torture.
"It was carefully monitored" does not negate the fact it is torture, unless you want many events that transpired during the Spanish Inquisition to somehow become legitimized. Whether such methods work or not is truly irrelevant, as it still falls into the definition of torture, unless one takes the stance of the ends justify the means (EJtM).
Should one take the stance that the EJtM, where does the line get drawn? Do we expand "EIT" to include the rack? Thumb screws? How about slow evisceration? If it gets the information we're looking for it can't be bad, right?
If you start accepting one step beyond the line of reason, the following steps become easier to take and before long you will be having the most extreme and lethal torture being applied in the name of "security". Not exactly what the US founding fathers had in mind ...
Of course, taking the stance of the EJtM does also mean that the actions of others are then therefore justified in reaching their goals. Congratulations, you have just legitimized al_Queada. You may not agree with their goals (and indeed I would hope pretty much all folks outside the organization do not agree with their goals), but if we are revert to the EJtM mentality, then we reap what we sow.
Just my 2 cents.
It's a moral issue. Even if torture gave us the exact spot where Osama Bin Laden was hiding, it should still be illegal. It's wrong, no matter what the justification is. Period, end of discussion.
KSM and co do not follow the rules, so we're not bound to give them any protections of Geneva. So we can do whatever we want, including EIT.
So, just to clarify, "we" should have no actual consistent ethical standards, but rather have arbitrary standards with no consistent basis that change depending on whom we're dealing with? I disagree.
Matt, would it be fine if I painted all Baptists with the same brush as Fred Phelps? He calls himself and his followers Baptists too.
Depends. If I stopped seeing Baptists staging anti-protests AGAINST Phelps, and if Baptist nations worldwide stoned suspected gays and sponsored "honor killings" against U.S. servicemen, and harbored Phelps after he committed acts of terrorism, and beheaded people who deleted Bibles from their Kindles, and assassinated people who made movies slamming Phelps and/or Baptists, and stormed the offices of newspapers that ran stories critical of Phelps and tried to burn them to the ground and kill the employees... then, yes, I absolutely would.
YMMV.
The ends NEVER justify the means, we do not get to choose when, and when not to be civilized.
EIT is literally the words the SS used to justify themselves to the British before appeasement ended.
There's Godwinning, and then there's "literally using Nazi terminology."
Also I'm glad we, the nation that prides ourselves on being the utmost exporter of freedom and liberty, are holding ourselves to the strict standards of "literally terrorists." Must be a hard bar to reach.
Anyways, the "EIT" didn't give us any actual info and we only caught Bin Laden after we stopped using it. So hey, go us! At least it gave us the vital information that Iraq had WMDs.
Wait.
Huh.
Let's suppose that despite all the evidence to the contrary on this matter, Santorum is right. Torture works because you break a human being and reduce him to a meatpuppet whose only will is your own, so he answers all your questions truthfully. This in no way absolves us of the fact that you're breaking a human being and you're a monster for supporting this. The quote above doesn't get any clearer in showing how far off Santorum has driven into crazyland.
Santorum might as well have said "What? You don't think nuking the entire Middle East won't solve our Islamic terrorist problem? Of course it would! You'd be turning the entire population to ash suspended in molten glass." Technically true. And morally abominable.
Then again, PARTY OF GOOD CHRISTIAN FAMILY VALUES. I too recall the Bible verse where Jesus said "Yo let's go torture some dudes and break their will"
I feel like the irony in the original story has been completely missed here: McCain was a longtime prisoner of war. In other words, someone who actually has been tortured. Candy-ass Santorum is trying to tell him he doesn't understand how it works. (Also, Santorum? Your religion isn't down with the torture policies you're endorsing. Stop being so Godless if you're going to be the hardcore religion guy.)
Also not yet mentioned that I've seen: the evidence that waterboarding prolonged Bin Laden's life by several years because fraudulent information gained thereby (erroneously) convinced government officials at the time that Bin Laden was a figurehead rather than an operational leader and therefore wasn't that important. Here's one summary/story about that and you can dig up more if you're really curious.
KSM and co do not follow the rules, so we're not bound to give them any protections of Geneva. So we can do whatever we want, including EIT.So, just to clarify, "we" should have no actual consistent ethical standards, but rather have arbitrary standards with no consistent basis that change depending on whom we're dealing with? I disagree.
It's the only consistent, ethical thing to do, obviously.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
KSM and co do not follow the rules, so we're not bound to give them any protections of Geneva. So we can do whatever we want, including EIT.So, just to clarify, "we" should have no actual consistent ethical standards, but rather have arbitrary standards with no consistent basis that change depending on whom we're dealing with? I disagree.
You'd have to ask Sissyl, he's the one who said we should abide by Geneva. I actually pointed out that we go above and beyond what Geneva requires.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
EIT is literally the words the SS used to justify themselves to the British before appeasement ended.
There's Godwinning, and then there's "literally using Nazi terminology."
Also I'm glad we, the nation that prides ourselves on being the utmost exporter of freedom and liberty, are holding ourselves to the strict standards of "literally terrorists." Must be a hard bar to reach.
Anyways, the "EIT" didn't give us any actual info and we only caught Bin Laden after we stopped using it. So hey, go us! At least it gave us the vital information that Iraq had WMDs.
Wait.
Huh.
Wow, would you like some facts with your posts?
Like a) how we found caches of Chemical weapons in Iraq that weren't supposed to be there, or how we found Migs and other things he was required to destroy?
Or maybe b) How the EIT allowed us to verify information after the fact?
How many dead innocents are you comfortable with?
Tell you what. I find your posts painful to read and causing much suffering. Are you going to stop posting?
Somehow I don't think so.
I don't feel it's torture. We've had three administrations who don't feel it's torture.
IMHO, anyone who doesn't think it's torture should volunteer to submit to it for, say, an hour and see if they change their mind. (Granted, not particularly practical for a random civilian to actually do.)
If they're right, it'll be no big deal.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Let's suppose that despite all the evidence to the contrary on this matter, Santorum is right. Torture works because you break a human being and reduce him to a meatpuppet whose only will is your own, so he answers all your questions truthfully. This in no way absolves us of the fact that you're breaking a human being and you're a monster for supporting this. The quote above doesn't get any clearer in showing how far off Santorum has driven into crazyland.
Santorum might as well have said "What? You don't think nuking the entire Middle East won't solve our Islamic terrorist problem? Of course it would! You'd be turning the entire population to ash suspended in molten glass." Technically true. And morally abominable.
Then again, PARTY OF GOOD CHRISTIAN FAMILY VALUES. I too recall the Bible verse where Jesus said "Yo let's go torture some dudes and break their will"
Good thing he didn't say that.
His actual words:
I don’t, everything I’ve read shows that we would not have gotten this information as to who this man was if it had not been gotten information from people who were subject to enhanced interrogation. And so this idea that we didn’t ask that question while Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was being waterboarded, he doesn’t understand how enhanced interrogation works. I mean, you break somebody, and after they’re broken, they become cooperative. And that’s when we got this information. And one thing led to another, and led to another, and that’s how we ended up with bin Laden. That seems to be clear from all the information I read. Maybe McCain has better information than I do, but from what I’ve seen, it seems pretty clear that but for these cooperative witnesses who were cooperative as a result of enhanced interrogations, we would not have gotten bin Laden.
I know I know... How dare I throw facts into your rhetoric.
The problem with that line of thinking is that the "broken" prisoners were still holding back information and providing fraudulent information -- information that led the CIA to give up on looking for Bin Laden back in '06.
So even if you can somehow make an ironclad case that torture ultimately caught Bin Laden, it's also a matter of record that it set the search for him back five years. Pragmatically, that seems, at best, like a wash.
Santorum's stances are remarkably consistent -- you've got to give him that. In his ideal universe, the persons of U.S. citizens are subject to an absolutist government (that is not accountable to them in any way) in all aspects of their lives (abortion, "homosexual acts," owning pets, daring to criticize Rick Santorum at a book signing, etc.) -- self-ownership is not recognized. The persons of non-U.S. citizens are equally subject to an absolutist government that is not accountable to its own citizens nor to the rest of the world in any way.
At least you can say he's not a hypocrite.
|
Holder points to EIT as part of the 'moasic of sources' used to catch OBL.
And of course let's not forget Panetta himself saying EIT led to Bin Laden. So McCain doesn't understand Panetta either.
Would you rather we treat the detainees at Gitmo per Geneva?
The ends never justifies the means. I do not care if so called EIT helped or not. We should treat all prisoners as per the Geneva conventions. Whether they deserve it or not, whether they would treat us the same or not.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
The problem with that line of thinking is that the "broken" prisoners were still holding back information and providing fraudulent information -- information that led the CIA to give up on looking for Bin Laden back in '06.
So even if you can somehow make an ironclad case that torture ultimately caught Bin Laden, it's also a matter of record that it set the search for him back five years. Pragmatically, that seems, at best, like a wash.
DM,
Do you have linkage for that? What data I've seen points to a continued effort to locate OBL, including getting the pseudonym of the courier, using the denials of leaders to pinpoint him (That's part of intelligence, sifting through and building from the collected information) Finding the source in Iraq, and a continued effort.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
The ends never justifies the means. I do not care if so called EIT helped or not. We should treat all prisoners as per the Geneva conventions. Whether they deserve it or not, whether they would treat us the same or not.Holder points to EIT as part of the 'moasic of sources' used to catch OBL.
And of course let's not forget Panetta himself saying EIT led to Bin Laden. So McCain doesn't understand Panetta either.
Would you rather we treat the detainees at Gitmo per Geneva?
So you support taking them out and shooting them too. Good to know.
|
|
So you support taking them out and shooting them too. Good to know.The ends never justifies the means. I do not care if so called EIT helped or not. We should treat all prisoners as per the Geneva conventions. Whether they deserve it or not, whether they would treat us the same or not.Holder points to EIT as part of the 'moasic of sources' used to catch OBL.
And of course let's not forget Panetta himself saying EIT led to Bin Laden. So McCain doesn't understand Panetta either.
Would you rather we treat the detainees at Gitmo per Geneva?
I am sorry, but where do you get that from?
|
|
Ah, no!
Not them!
Them and their (alleged) religion!
Geraint,
We read constantly that Al-Q Doesn't represent Islam. This has always bothered me.
If it's not Islam they follow, then why do we treat them with Islamic customs?
I mean if we had Buddhists blowing up in Japan, would we call them Buddhists?
I'm (nominally) a Lutheran. But I'm also a self admitted henothesitic heritic. If the ELCA actually had rules on that kind of thing, I'd not expect to take communion in an ELCA church. So why, if these terrorists don't represent Islam, do we treat them with Islamic customs?
Rand Simberg makes similar arguments.
Or to put it another way, I suggested on FB that I hoped they wrapped OBL's body in bacon before it was dumped into the ocean. If he's not a 'devout Muslim' then it shouldn't matter if he's bacon flavoured before dropping him in the ocean. If he is a 'devout Muslim', then the religion already is against the west, per his statements.
It's a shame you misunderstood me, maybe I was too oblique.
Islam is not a unified, uniform belief system, any more than Buddhism, Judaism or Christianity is.
All of the religions I can find seem to have a vast array of interpretations. Those unpleasant folk who picket the funerals of US soldiers are Christians, and so are my lovely, gentle CofE neighbours. The only qualification for belonging to a religion is the personal opinion that you do belong. After that it's all simply opinion.
I am still interested in this they you talk about. It seems a rather broad group. And isn't the whole point of Camp X-ray (sorry, Gitmo, I have no idea why we have to use military slang, it's not as if we're working there) that the US government can ignore the normal rule of law, so that we actually have no way of categorising the people held in the legally-dubious detention centre on a military base in Cuba?
Also, I'm interested in your desire to wrap Obama's corpse in bacon.
Why would you regard this as a good idea? He wouldn't know, but the action would be a clear and deliberate snub to his shared religious convictions. Many people who share some, but not all of Obama's religious convictions also believe that pork is unclean. Why would it be a positive to mak a flagrant and unnecessary gesture against their religious practices?
Finally, why do we need to consider the victim's religion when we consider the ethics of torture? That seems a peculiar perspective to me, doesn't it seem a little odd to you?