It's become more or less common knowledge that US forces have been using music as an operational tool for some time now, and I've begun seeing lists of the songs that are being used either to inflict pain, to demoralize, or to just generally disorient various people in various sorts of situations.
There are others, wiser than I, who will opine as to the questions of efficacy and the moral issues surrounding these kinds of operations; I will opine, instead, as to the quality of the songs used.
Frankly, had anyone asked, I could have put the torturers onto much better musical choices, just by selecting from my own "My Music" folder--which left me thinking: "hey, it's the weekend...why not do exactly that?"
Got any psychological warfare missions planned for the weekend? Expecting to have to direct amplified sound at an angry mob in a defensive maneuver Saturday night? Planning a Halloween haunted house that goes a bit...fuurther?
Come along with me then, soldier, and I'll provide you a playlist that should do the trick in almost any foreseeable emergency.
There is a lot of debate in the public space this week over the impact of the United States Supreme Court's ruling that gives detainees in a "holding pattern" at Guantanamo Bay access to the United States Courts for the purpose of presenting petitions of habeas corpus.
It is a generally accepted misunderstanding that the Court's ruling gave new rights to the detainees, which seems to be the issue that is the most controversial.
The purpose of today's discussion is to explain why that view of the ruling is dead wrong...and to offer some thoughts on why this ruling might actually be one of the most important "restraint of government" rulings to have come down the pike in some time.
In a stunning blow to the Bush Administration in its war-on-terrorism policies, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign nationals held at Guantanamo Bay have a right to pursue habeas challenges to their detention. The Court, dividing 5-4, ruled that Congress had not validly taken away habeas rights. If Congress wishes to suspend habeas, it must do so only as the Constitution allows - when the country faces rebellion or invasion.
That's 5-4 on a decision that shouldn't even have been in QUESTION with such a bedrock principle as Habeas Corpus.
Military judges dismissed charges Monday against a Guantanamo detainee who chauffeured Osama bin Laden and another who allegedly killed a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan, marking a stunning setback to Washington's attempts to try detainees in military court.
A judge said he did not have jurisdiction to try bin Laden's driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, under a 2006 U.S. law authorizing the tribunals for foreign terrorism suspects. It was the second major legal victory for Hamdan, who last year won a U.S. Supreme Court challenge that scrapped the first Guantanamo tribunal system.
From a Frameshop perspective, that means that Bush screwed up royally & just let 380 "terrorists" *escape* justice.
That's not 100% true - starting with the idea that all these men are dangerous terrorists. Many appear to be innocent or just grunts making a living or following orders.
However, the point is that Bushco's incompetence is once again highlighted by their careless classification of these detainees.
The meme should be: How can Bush & the GOP protect us from the terrorists if they let them off because of a technicality?
At the risk of hyperbole, I'm posting this incredible story I just saw.
The AP is reporting that a military judge has thrown out terrorism charges against Omar Khadr, a detainee at Guantanamo.
That's a serious blow to Bush's whole war-crimes trial system that he's put up by itself.
However, what may be more stunning is that this ruling could throw out THE ENTIRE WAR-CRIMES TRIAL SYSTEM. And how? Because a technicality which appears to have been caused by the Bush Administration itself.
Get it? They create a system which ignores international human rights and American system of laws, but then they screw up that whole screwed up system with a screw up!!
Update: Lawyer says this is not just a technicality. See Notes at end.
The Red Cross ripped the Bush Administration for denying it humanitarian access to people detained by Bushco some of who have been held for years & without charge.
The Red Cross “deplored the fact that the U.S. authorities had not moved closer to granting the ICRC access to persons held in undisclosed locations,” the Geneva-based agency said.
Jakob Kellenberger said: “No matter how legitimate the grounds for detention, there exists no right to conceal a person’s whereabouts or to deny that he or she is being detained.”
Given that the Red Cross acknowledged the necessity of jailing people - & did not ask for ANY prisoner to be released - why would Bushco not give humanitarian access to the Red Cross?
