Post #192,214
1/29/05 9:43:12 AM
|
As opposed to Hindu nations like Nepal?
From "Free Inquiry" magazine, Feb./Mar. 2005, p.25: Miscarrying Mother Jailed in Nepal -- In the fourth month of her pregnancy, Shanti Shresta suffered a miscarriage. Simply because the event occurred so late in her pregnancy, Nepalese authorities arrested her in the hospital and guarded her room. She kept her five-year-old son with her so her husband would not lose time from work caring for him, and she took her son with her when she was transferred to jail after her release from the hospital. Months later, she was tried, convicted, and sentenced to twenty years in jail. She was finally released when the Nepalese king granted amnesty to several other women in jail for having abortions (abortion is legal in Nepal only under certain conditions). Although she received job training and was reunited with her husband, Shanti had to move because of the stigma associated with her case. She is also searching for her son, whom she was forced to give up because she could not care for him. There's no excuse for mistreatment of prisoners. I don't think, however, that it's the result of American culture in this case. Many other cultures have ideas about sexuality that are oppressive and inhumane. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #192,245
1/30/05 12:32:34 AM
|
Okay..l don't understand your reference...
first - she was jailed because the police suspected and had evidence that she had committed a crime (abortion). That happens all the time here (and used to for that particular reason a few years ago), so how does this tie to Gitmo or the Iraq Prison?
second - there's no evidence in the cited case of sex as a punishment...
Certainly, the idea that sexual repression is solely an American Ideal is faulty. No one could argue that. Afganistan's treatment of woman and several african customs treatment of women would prove that wrong.
Even the idea of using sex as a punishment isn't solely an American concept (regardless of what Aston says). Jailors raping female inmates is as old as the hills. I doubt even the American concept of male prisoners having to be someone's bitch isn't solely American.
That said, we do seem to concentrate on it more that other countries. The USSR (and others) favored more conventional forms of toture when they needed information.
This all said, Aston's key point remains the same. In an clusmy attempt to 'break' these prisoners, we're reaching out to taboo elements in their own culture. Ultimitely this forces the issue into a battle of cultures rather than an attempt to ensure that those who were behind the attacks are caught and preventing future attacks.
|
Post #192,248
1/30/05 3:55:39 AM
|
good points
If I wanted to break a muslim and had some time and in gitmo they had nothing but I would simply deprogram them the same way you would deprogram a christian cultist.The whahabi view is twisted from the Koran, let me emphasise not twisted out of shape but twisted from the total muslim population of the world view od islam. Now a knowledgable Imam. not wahabi can use the socratic method to wean these losers of their bin laden fatalism. I used to use that method when rescuing lost kids from satanism, moonies,hari krishnas (caviat the krishna movement is not cultism per se but the american adherents of it at one time practiced cultist beliefs) and pento psychos( Jim Jones and Koresh being good examples) Now for those who are not captured mandatory dipping of bullets in pig blood is recomended. Flame throwers against insurgents (close enough of course) that has pig fat listed as a main ingredient we may not kill you but if you are identified by Iraqis (lgit never faked this is important) then dogs will pee on you. engafe the wimmens find the hookers (they gotem everyone does) own them via friendlies (people gotta let off stream}
regards, daemon
I love her dearly, far beyond any creature I've ever known, and I can prove it, for never once in almost seventy years of married life have I taken her by the throat. Mind you, it's been a near thing once or twice. George Macdonald Frasier Clearwater highschool marching band [link|http://www.chstornadoband.org/|http://www.chstornadoband.org/]
|
Post #192,253
1/30/05 9:48:47 AM
|
I brought it up because...
1) I found it interesting but didn't think it was worth starting a new thread. 2) I thought it fit a bit as a counterpoint to his comments against American puritanical guilt and so forth. Repressive attitudes against almost all things sexual is not limited to American puritanism nor Wahabbi Islam. (Of course, Ashton didn't say it was.) I don't think puritanism had anything to do with the choice of technique to try to break the prisoners in this case. Rather, as you say, it was an attempt to exploit what was perceived as a taboo by the interrogators and could have been done by anyone with any sort of upbringing (with enough rationalization). The woman in Nepal had her life turned upside-down by something that was not her fault. The law and her society turned against her. It's hard to argue that it's not a result of repressive attitudes against women. I agree, the tie-in isn't very strong except from my perception of the similar societal attitudes (e.g. strong women, or women having power over men, is unheard of in Islam). The woman in Nepal was punished by her society because she didn't live up to an inflexible, male-imposed, ideal of what a woman's role is, just as in Islamic countries women are often regarded as unclean temptresses by other inflexible, male-imposed ideals. (I presume that very strong reactions would be elicited simply by using women interrogators even without the touching and so forth. Whether that is good or bad, I can't say - it probably depends on the circumstances. Prisoners shouldn't have a veto on the choice of interrogator, but the purpose is to get information - not break people.) Like you, I think that the actions taken by the guards are stupid and ineffective and likely counter-productive. If these prisoners were fighting the Americans, then they probably already feel that we're evil for being there. Doing things to them that reinforce that feeling doesn't make much sense to me. This all said, Aston's key point remains the same. In a clusmy attempt to 'break' these prisoners, we're reaching out to taboo elements in their own culture. Ultimitely this forces the issue into a battle of cultures rather than an attempt to ensure that those who were behind the attacks are caught and preventing future attacks. I agree except that it doesn't appear to be a tactic that was condoned. From MM's article: In November, in response to an AP request, the military described an April, 2003, incident in which a female interrogator took off her uniform top, exposed her brown T-shirt, ran her fingers through a detainee's hair and sat on his lap. That session was immediately ended by a supervisor and that interrogator received a written reprimand and additional training, the military said.
In another incident, the military reported that in early 2003 a different female interrogator "wiped dye from red magic marker on detainees' shirt after detainee spit on her," telling the detainee it was blood. She was verbally reprimanded, the military said. The female interrogators obviously got the idea to do the touching and fake blood painting from somewhere. Rumsfeld and Congress should get to the bottom of what happened and why and make sure that there's a clear policy on interrogation techniques. I hope my stand makes a little more sense now. Thanks. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #192,256
1/30/05 10:20:10 AM
|
Ever heard of Benazir Bhutto? Powerful muslim women exist.
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #192,257
1/30/05 10:23:41 AM
|
Also the prophet's daughter kicked serious ass as well
I love her dearly, far beyond any creature I've ever known, and I can prove it, for never once in almost seventy years of married life have I taken her by the throat. Mind you, it's been a near thing once or twice. George Macdonald Frasier Clearwater highschool marching band [link|http://www.chstornadoband.org/|http://www.chstornadoband.org/]
|
Post #192,258
1/30/05 10:49:15 AM
1/30/05 11:32:22 AM
|
Good counterpoint. But...
Nepotism helps. ;-) She would not have become Prime Minister without her father's name. And she was rather weak in that position, at least partially because she was opposed for being a woman, IIRC. [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto|Wikipedia]: Benazir Bhutto (born June 21, 1953) became the first woman to lead a Muslim country in modern times when she was elected Prime Minister of Pakistan in 1988, only to be deposed in a coup 20 months later. She was re-elected in 1993 but was dismissed three years later amid various corruption scandals. Some of these scandals involve contracts awarded to Swiss companies during her regime and remain unresolved. Her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, has been implicated as well, and remained in jail until November 2004.
The daughter of former Pakistani premier Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Benazir was educated in the west, notably at Harvard University and Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford. She temporarily left Harvard for New York City in 1971, when India sent troops into East Pakistan -- soon to be called Bangladesh -- and her father, as Pakistan's foreign minister, traveled to the United Nations to resolve the issue. Benazir Bhutto joined her father in New York City and acted as a kind of assistant to him. This seems to have been a formative experience for her, in that watching her father in action brought her out of academia and showed her the ways of power politics. Her remaining years in the United States included active participation in various social causes.
[...]
After graduating, she returned to Pakistan, but, in the course of her father's imprisonment and execution, she was placed under house arrest. Having been allowed, in 1984, to go back to the UK, she was leader in exile of the Pakistan Peoples Party, her father's party, but was unable to make her political presence felt in Pakistan until the death of General Zia ul-Haq.
Then, in the first open election in more than a decade, voters in Pakistan elected Benazir on November 16, 1988 to be Prime Minister. Bhutto was sworn in on December 2, becoming the first woman to head the government of a Muslim-majority state in modern times.
Bhutto has lived in self-imposed exile since 1999 when she left Pakistan to avoid arrest in a corruption case. While she still heads the Pakistan People's Party and says she wants to return to office, most people in Pakistan are convinced that she and her husband were indeed extremely corrupt. Her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, served a seven-year prison term in Pakistan on charges of taking kickbacks. He was released in November 2004 [link|http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=99541®ion=2|[1]]. It is alleged that they stole hundreds of millions of dollars by demanding 'commissions' on all types of government contracts and other dealings.
It was during Bhutto's rule that the repressive Taliban gained prominence in Afghanistan with the financial assistance of her government. The Taliban took power in Kabul in September 1996, and Bhutto's government became one of only three nations to recognize it. In the administrations following Bhutto's, Pakistan remained a key supporter of the regime until the September 11 attacks in the United States.
[...] What's that expression? [link|http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxtheexc.html|The exception proves the rule]. Yes, there are some examples of strong women in some muslim societies. But Bhuttos or Cillers or Wajeds or Zias are [link|http://www.sfusd.k12.ca.us/schwww/sch618/Women/Muslim_Women_Today.html|very very rare]. Three of the four are daughters or widows of high-ranking politicians. Ciller did not come from a political family. [edit:] tyop. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #192,260
1/30/05 10:52:47 AM
|
family connections dont count here? Bush Kennedy
I love her dearly, far beyond any creature I've ever known, and I can prove it, for never once in almost seventy years of married life have I taken her by the throat. Mind you, it's been a near thing once or twice. George Macdonald Frasier Clearwater highschool marching band [link|http://www.chstornadoband.org/|http://www.chstornadoband.org/]
|
Post #192,261
1/30/05 11:13:23 AM
|
Of course they do.
Let's go back to my original [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=192253|comment]: I agree, the tie-in isn't very strong except from my perception of the similar societal attitudes (e.g. strong women, or women having power over men, is unheard of in Islam). The woman in Nepal was punished by her society because she didn't live up to an inflexible, male-imposed, ideal of what a woman's role is, just as in Islamic countries women are often regarded as unclean temptresses by other inflexible, male-imposed ideals.The brush was a little broad, but only a little IMO. There are exceptions, and I know of no society in the world where women and men are fully equal in political, economic and social power. But some muslim nations are especially egregious, e.g. [link|http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGMDE230152004|Amnesty International]'s report on Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabia is gearing up for the country's first nationwide municipal elections early next year, but half of the population will not be taking part. Women have been excluded. This is contrary to the country's election law, which does not explicitly ban women from taking part.
The exclusion also undermines recent positive developments in the country, such as the much publicised "National Dialogue", which included a focus on women's rights and their ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). The ratification in October 2000 was done without reservation about Article 7 on political participation.
[...]
Saudi Arabia's electoral law is clear about women's participation. The law uses the word "citizen" -- in Arabic, this refers to both men and women in indicating those eligible to vote. Despite this, Interior Minister Prince Nayef bin Abdel Aziz announced last month that women would not be allowed to take part in the elections, saying "I don't think that women's participation is possible."
The Head of the Election Committee, Prince Mut'ab bin Abdul Aziz, said, "I expect women to participate in elections in future stages, after conducting studies to assess whether it is useful or not." Amnesty International opposes Saudi Arabia's plans to ban women from participation in the forthcoming elections and believes that the right to universal suffrage is a fundamental right that must not be delayed.
[...]
In Saudi Arabia, not only are women being blocked from participating in politics, they are not permitted to move freely without the company of an immediate male relative (Mahram), even to seek urgent medical attention.
A simple activity like walking down the street is prohibited for women who are not allowed to walk in public without the company of a Mahram. Breaching these codes gives rise to suspicion of prostitution and may result in arrest, brutality, and torture by police, particularly the religious police (Mutawa'een), who patrol the streets monitoring, among other things, women's conduct or dress or behaviour.
Further gender-based restrictions on the freedom of movement include the prohibition on women driving cars. Fourteen years ago, 47 women took part in an unprecedented protest against what was then customary law. They drove a convoy of cars in Riyadh and were immediately arrested and detained for hours. They were released only after their male relatives signed undertakings that the women would not violate the ban again.
Those among them who had jobs in the public sector were dismissed from their jobs by a royal decree. A fatwa (religious ruling) was issued by the senior council of Ulama (Clerics) stating that women were not allowed to drive. This was followed by a government statement supporting the fatwa and warning of punishment for women who do not respect it. Opposition to the ban is growing once again as the economy opens up and more women find work.
The country's Labour Minister announced in May 2004 that women may carry out business activities without the need for a wakil (representative). Although the impact of this decision is still unclear, AI welcomes all steps that seek to reduce restrictions against women's right to work and lessen discrimination against women.
Women in Saudi Arabia continue to challenge many severe forms of discrimination in the fields of personal status, employment, participation in public life, the subordination of women to men, and restrictions on their freedom of movement.
[...] Emphasis added. Independent women are suspected of being prostitutes. That's about all I can say about this. I'll bow out now. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #192,263
1/30/05 11:22:28 AM
|
slavery is still legal in saudi, backward fsckers anyway
I love her dearly, far beyond any creature I've ever known, and I can prove it, for never once in almost seventy years of married life have I taken her by the throat. Mind you, it's been a near thing once or twice. George Macdonald Frasier Clearwater highschool marching band [link|http://www.chstornadoband.org/|http://www.chstornadoband.org/]
|
Post #192,303
1/30/05 9:42:00 PM
|
Re: As opposed to Hindu nations like Nepal?
Of course we have no monopoly! Inhuman and inhumane treatment of People-not-Like-Me, via twisted 100%-human nasty interpretations of long-dead religio-Figureheads is a universally primitive habit - a mindset which guarantees the persistence of multiple idiocies.
But in the US, with at least nominal democracy and access to infinite information and lore, even about our own behavior (until recently) - We Have No Excuse. In contrast to most-all other backward nations (like ourselves) under the thrall of antediluvian priestly machinations: any Murican could have freed self from any inculcated ideology -- (well, lately) sans fear of bodily mutilation for heresy.
No excuse in US, as there's no effective penalty here for casting out Demons. (Unless one is abject slave to peer pressure. (No government can save folks from selves.))
Not so, in the countries named.
It is no argument: "Some are even Worse than We!" Is it?
moi
|