I brought it up because...
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.
