RubySoho
Winston
David Hicks Has Freedom Of Speech At Last (and you thought waterboarding was bad)
March 31st 2008 04:02
Freedom as it applies to David Hicks
The gag order placed on former Guantanamo detainee David Hicks has expired, leaving Hicks free to discuss his ordeal with the media. Hicks was convicted of “providing material support for terrorists”. Hmmm, next time an Arab looking guy asks to borrow a t- shirt, I suggest you think long and hard about your answer. Hicks was in 'Gitmo' for 6 years-how long will you get?
Hicks has long maintained that he was mistreated by US forces in the army base and critics of the US denounced his guilty plea as having being extracted via the use of torture. The US has already admitted to using torture techniques such as waterboarding. Mamdouh Habib, another Australian who was held at Guantanamo but released without charge claims that “Guantanamo Bay is an experiment…and what they experiment in is brainwashing”. Habib is referring to the twin techniques of isolation and sensory deprivation, which are designed to strip the prisoner of all former memory and personality traits and replace them with a new persona.
This technique is based on the 1950s experiments of Dr Ewan Cameron at Montreal’s McGill University’s Allen Memorial Institute, where patients were held in isolation for weeks on end, given frequent shock treatments and deprived of any sensory stimulation. The result? Memory loss, chronic pain, loss of analytical and comprehension skills and regression into child-like behaviour and language. Cameron’s aim was to erase the subject's personality and create a new, 'improved' persona in its place. In the end, whilst Cameron did indeed succeed in the former, he failed miserably in the latter. The patients, or more accurately, victims, had their memories and personalities erased, but no new ones installed in their place. As such, they became incomplete people, blank slates, shadows of their former selves. This is what many claim is happening in Guantanamo.
The Allen Memorial Institute was forced to pay compensation to its victims. What will the USA’s comeuppance be? Nothing, most likely. Anyone interested in learning more about the USA’s treatment of its prisoners should read Naomi Klein’s excellent book, The Shock Doctrine.
Hicks has no plans as yet to discuss his Guantanamo years with the media, despite being urged to do so by supporters. Those closest to him say he is still lacking in confidence and is in an emotionally fragile state. And with six years of torture and a fake guilty plea- no wonder.
The sad thing is David Hicks has most likely being “Shocked and Awed” so successfully that he is no longer capable of giving a complete and accurate account of his long, lonely years in Guantanamo. But whatever information he does have, I hope he shares it with the rest of the world, I hope he screams it from the rooftops, I hope he writes a book and it sells millions of copies, I hope the current US administration is held accountable for its grotesque actions.
But I doubt it. Unfortunately, Hicks has the stigma of a guilty plea and conviction attached to his name and to those not willing to delve into issues at depth- which let’s face it, is most of the population- that’s enough to render him untrustworthy and discount his own version of events. So whilst the public will certainly view whatever statements he gives with the sort of interest usually reserved for freak shows at the Florida State Fair, it is unlikely they will be treated with the seriousness they deserve.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al will get off scott-free. Again.
| 71 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Of course, that is neither here nor there in this instance. I've heard nothing about Hicks here. I don't think he has gotten much attention in the U.S. press, either that or I just have not noticed the headlines. I did a quick Google search, and it is hard to find a story that doesn't seem pretty biased one way or the other. Do you have any HARD facts on this guy, on what exactly he did and did not do? I really don't know what to think of him. In his case, his alleged torture seems entirely inappropriate. He possessed no knowledge that would avert disaster or anything of that nature. Short of that, his torture seems to simply be sadism. It is a disgrace that the U.S. government would condone or engage in such actions, especially for a low level peon where there is nothing to be gained.
I don't recognize my own country sometimes.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
I hear this argument a lot, that if its only terrorists who are being tortured then what is the problem? The problem is not what torture says about the enemy- its what it says about us
Empathy is one of the things that makes us human. As the human race evolves physically, so we evolve emotionally and morally. To be able to inflict pain and suffering on another human being, you have to flick that switch inside of you that allows to to put yourself in their place and feel their pain. The fact the West is openly embracing torture again is, to me, a regression to our less enlightened past.
That said, the David Hicks case is a true travesty. Yes, he went to Afghanistan in early 2001 to join the Taliban after converting to an extreme form of Islam. However, there is no proof that he fought as a "enemy combatant". That's just a made up term anyway that America invented to get around the Geneva Convention. After 3 years in custody the only charge the Americans could trump up against him was "providing material support for terrorists".
They had three years to frame him for something and that's the best they could do? That alone should tell you that his arrest was questionable at best, a travesty of justice at worst.
And oh yeah, that charge, did not exist at the time he supposedly committed it.. A retrospective charge, It's like alcohol suddenly becoming illegal tomorrow and all of us being arrested for drinking it today.
Comment by Cibbuano
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
That Montreal institute was also famous for secretly dosing patients with LSD, so that they could study insanity. Very controversial...
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Please do not think that I embrace torture in any way. I do not. I think your principles are noble and laudable. However, there is a time when laudable principles are rendered moot. In the EXTREME (and highly unlikely) case that torture was truly necessary, what would you do? If, for example, a terrorist was actually caught in the act of setting up massive explosives or something of that nature, and the authorities had reason to suspect that there were others out doing the same thing at various locations, what then? If he refuses to talk, what then? Principles against torturing one very bad person could lead to the deaths of thousands of innocent people. Unacceptable. In extreme situations, extreme actions may be necessary. If I thought that by torturing one person I could save thousands, I would do it myself. I would despise it, but I would do it. The alternative would be untold numbers of deaths. One of those choices would make it very hard for me to sleep at night. The other would make it very hard for me to continue to live.
As I said, I don't think anyone at Guantanamo fits the bill. I'm not sure anyone we've ever captured has, or if anyone ever will. Short of this doomsday scenario, torture is unconscionable and pointless. It would be a HIGHLY unlikely scenario that would ever call for its use. But, if such a day ever comes to pass, I would not hesitate to support it. I saw too close at hand the events of 7 years ago. I would gladly compromise my principles to prevent a scene like that from ever happening again, and to spare thousands of people that anguish. What good would be served by my personal integrity and noble principles, if violating them could have saved lives? My hypothetical scenario is probably the only time that I wouldn't oppose the use of torture, but the fact remains that there is a marginally plausible situation where I would support it. My point is, I agree with condemning torture in ALMOST all situations, but I cannot condemn it wholesale. Truthfully, I would caution against doing so. Issues are seldom purely black and white, even issues like torture.
I know, I'm a bit off topic, just following the meandering track of my thoughts
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
I'm with you, no torture, ever, nah-uh, no way.
And what is torture? Yes, the definition always seems to be changing to accommodate various practices. But I guess you could say torture is that which elicits severe pain and/or discomfort in the victim- be it psychological, mental, emotional or physical.
Winston,
That hypothetical is extremely hypothetical. Has torture ever been inflicted in such circumstances? No. It is usually fettered out as a punishment, not as a deterant nor to elicit vital information. What info did David Hicks have that they felt the need to torture him for six years?
And will torture lead a suicide bomber to spill the beans or will be more "proof" to him that he is doing God's work? People cling to their beliefs more than ever when they feel they are been punished for them. Torture is not the answer.
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
I agree with you absolutely that David Hicks did not merit his harsh treatment, despite whatever crimes he may have committed.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone