The Danes have been having their own little torture scandal this summer. A Danish officer, Annemette Hommel, face charges after an interpreter accused her of mistreating prisoners during interrogations. Iraqi prisoners were refused water, kept in uncomfortable positions, and generally treated roughly. Sounds bad. But according to Hommel, the interpreters, most of them Palestinian Danes, were unprofessional, and openly sympathetic to the prisoners. They also found it difficult to work with a female officer. Hommel did deny one prisoner water during an interrogation, but she says he called for water constantly to cause delay. The interrogations were short and superficial anyway - the British do the real interrogations. Hommel attributes the accusation to revenge.

Who to trust? All charges like this need to be investigated, but enough doubt have been raised that I find it difficult to believe any serious mistreatment took place. This can more likely be attributed to the inexperience of the interpreters and their sympathy for an Iraqi resistance against Western occupants. Even if the accusations are true, this is hardly torture. It barely even qualifies as light psychological torture.

What's just as interesting here as whether the accusations are true, is the way this has been handled in Denmark - by the military, politicians and the media. The Danish forces were not, for instance, given guidelines on how to interrogate their prisoners. So what rules did Hommel break by denying a prisoner water for a short while, or keeping him on his knees? Why the panic reaction? There's talk that Denmark should no longer do any interrogation of prisoners, and just hand them all over to the British, but the British forces use the same interrogation techniques Hommel has been accused of - or worse. So isn't that just a convenient abdication of responsibility? As for the media, they went into full Abu Ghraib mode from day 1, more interested in building an exciting scandal than uncovering the truth. But this wasn't remotely like Abu Ghraib.

How can any country contribute meaningfully to a military operation abroad under such conditions? Blogger Hans Rustad has written extensively about this (1 2 3 4 5 6). He detects a lack of seriousness about Denmark's mission in Iraq here, a desire to stay above reality and let others get dirty while we Scandinavians maintain moral purity. He writes that this might just as well happen in Norway, and points to a contradiction between Scandinavian ideals and war zone realities:

How is it possible to get into such a mess? There's no doubt that this story has affected the Danish job in Iraq. The explanation is simple. The problem is our sense of reality, and this problem goes deep. It would seem that Nordic countries have developed an understanding of human rights a bit like the caricature of a Swedish law for children - they mustn't play without helmets.

There probably is a connection somewhere between our need for safety and security, and human rights. But with this connection we're off on in a wrong direction. Particularly in war.

If we don't solve this contradiction, we'll never be able to contribute militarily beyond a very basic level. This does not mean that we should tolerate torture. Abu Ghraib was a scandal. Torture is nearly always wrong, even of suspected terrorists. I owe this insight to the Bush administration - thank you for showing me the price of democratic shortcuts. But to do good in a war zone is difficult without actually shooting at people, interrogating prisoners, even making deadly mistakes. If we have a problem with that, we owe it to our forces not to send them into a situation we're not morally prepared to deal with. And if we do send them out, we need to be absolutely clear about our expectations of them. The Danes failed at this. So, I suspect, would we, if it came to that. We avoided this particular dilemma in Iraq by leaving all arrests to British forces, but how do we feel about what happens to them afterwards? We can choose between hypocrisy, inaction - or a reality update.

Who to trust? All charges like this need to be investigated, but enough doubt have been raised that I find it difficult to believe any serious mistreatment took place.

This is another of the casualties of Abu Ghraib. Before, I laughed off the stories of Guantanamo Bay inmates talking about prostitutes thrown into their cells (Are there even prostitutes in Gitmo?) or shredded Korans. But now? Who knows? After the Jerry Springer escapades in Iraq, all bets are off.

While there's certainly a legitimate question as to how rough you can play with people who a) aren't military combatants in the usual sense and b) know something potentially dangerous, I'm not losing sleep over what happens to them. What is of great concern to me is casual cruelty to run of the mill prisoners in US or allied hands, many (most?) of whom don't seem to be in custody for any especially good reason in the first place.

I'm going to be really snarky here:

Having a woman interrogating them might be considered torture in their religion, especially if her hair was uncovered:

Islamist theologians are divided on how much of a woman's body can be exposed in public. The most radical, the Sitris, insist that women should be entirely covered from head to toe, including their faces and fingers. The less radical Hanbalis say a woman should be covered all over, but recommend a mask with apertures for the eyes and the mouth. (A version of this, known as the burqa, was imposed on Afghan women by the Taliban).

Hijab theoreticians agree on one claim: a woman's hair emanates dangerous rays that could drive men wild with sexual lust and thus undermine social peace...

But I think this was discussed on another post.

Snippet via The Gweilo Diaries.

ok next time tell them you will turn them over to jordan or pakistan or any arab country for interogating. watch how quick they change their tune

The uncle of the interpreter who have made the ”torture” accusations is no other than Sheikh Ahmad Yassine aka Sauroman aka the very former spiritual leader of the PLO!

http://www.uriasposten.dk/2004_08_01_arkiv.html#109224816297672491

er, Hamas

Guilt by association is a nice technique. But that's about all it is.

Pardon as I tie this to Bush’s recent military announcement, but it all does tie together, and the relentlessly magnificent Mark Steyn knocks it out of the park again.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?...

Basically, the question is simple…. Just how serious is Country X (Denmark here) about confronting the forces in this world that foster terrorism, and how much is seemingly inexhaustible moral preening and posturing.

Bush’s announcement is a way of saying to the very hand-wringing Danes you write of here “Gear up and prepare to start paying for your right to be sanctimonious. Human rights are important to you? Great. Start considering EXACTLY what you are willing to pay, in money, in work, in military service, in blood, in lives…. to support “human rights” on this planet….. in Iraq, in Sudan, in the Middle East, and beyond. Are you serious and willing to sacrifice your treasure and your children, in the same way that Americans are willing to sacrifice theirs for democracy in Iraq? THAT serious? Then you will earn our admiration and support. Are you REALLY about posturing, preening, and sanctimonious holier-than-thou moralizing, while murderers ply their trade and you do nothing whatsoever for fear of “offending someone”? Then you will earn our contempt, and well-deserved.

God Bless the Danish government, and it’s supporters, for their work in Iraq. This post is not targeted at them. But it is time for a lot of journalists, “artists”, and professors, and their ilk, to get out a balance sheet and start tallying up the real costs of their “activism”. And that, more than anything else, is what is behind the parting a ways between the US and Europe, and addressing it is what must happen for that to be reversed.

The proper way to interrogate them would have been a) put them in air-conditioned Mosque, b) give them a coke c) provide them with an easy chair d) the interrogator should apologize for asking them any questions in advance on the theory that they would have volunteered information and explain that it is the fault of Western hatred for Moslems e) ask them if they have any useful information and, if they say no, f) pay them for the time they lost in working or to any Hamas chapter they wish to support and let them go. The interrogator should also complain that the need to question them was prompted by requests from Western oil companies and fudamentalist Christians in league with Zionists to control the world.

"This is another of the casualties of Abu Ghraib."

Personally, I would suggest that this is another casualty of an irresponsible media, more interested in sensationalism and perusing agendas than they are in uncovering truth and objectivity. In a word, an unserious media that reflects an unserious political and social structure.

“Guilt by association is a nice technique. But that's about all it is.”

Examining a persons associations for clues as to their nature is not merely a rhetorical technique. Dismissing associative evidence however, is.

“If we don't solve this contradiction, we'll never be able to contribute militarily beyond a very basic level.”

So here we are, tragically. The Western nations are tied up in knots wondering exactly how to help export democracy and freedom without shedding the blood of those that would take power and smash all freedoms to do it. Perhaps someday we will learn to shoot at people in a war situation while at the same time not denying them their human rights or civil liberties. Maybe the Europeans will show the world how this is done.

Europe has not had to fight for its freedom in a long time and as a result many have come to the conclusion that freedom is free. You just have to roll out of bed in the morning, declare yourself free and take a vacation. These same folks seem to believe the rest of the world isn’t taking this simple step because they are culturally different and perhaps don’t want western democracy forced on them. Personally, I understand the desire to sit back happily and let the rest of the world go to hell in a hand basket; as long as there were going to be no effect on my personal life. Unfortunately, if the rest of the world starts to ignite we in the west will also be burned.

someone please explain to me how iraq is threatening our democracy. i dont see them invading us, all i see is us invading them,
and their are no links between saddam and any terrorist organisation

The abuse scandal was laughable at it's most serious.How the fuck can these cretins expect to be treated like law-abiding citizens, when they are either terrorists or back-stabbers who went to Afghanistan or Iraq to fight against their own countries.
Human Rights should only apply to actual humans rather than murderous pigs.

Byron, one more time. I'll talk slow. After Pearl Harbor, the US response was not to "get Yamamoto". Austarlia then fouth the Japanese as well, though, strangely enough, Japan had never "invaded" Australia. Or Britain, for that matter.

But there was a lot of that going around. Germany never attacked Britian or France, yet both declared war on Germany. Whaaat? Just like that? How imperialist (as many a German would have said exactly). Meanwhile, Japan DID attack the US. Then the US immediately made the strategic decision "Germany First", and sent more supplies to Stalin to fight Germans than they did to the Pacific, as many an elderly Australian will be glad to tell you. Whaaat? This makes no sense!

Unless one is smart enough to realize that when war is declared, and Islamic fascists have done just that, you either choose to be proactive and fight your enemies (and Saddam was one, make no mistake) on YOUR terms, or reactive, and cede the initiative to them and "hope for the best". Jeez, I wonder which strategy leads to victory, and which to defeat?

Iraq, as Bush CLEARLY stated before the UN, was about WMD.... AND.... Saddam's history..... AND.... human rights..... AND repeatedly violating the UN..... AND radically changing political dynamic of the Middle East that was producing toxic terrorism that was getting us killed..... AND Saddam supporting terrorism.... AND more. It really isn't that difficult to anyone with a grasp of how historical events have played out time and time again.

As for "their (sic) are no links between saddam and any terrorist organisation" this is absurd. You are flat out wrong. The opposite of what you say is true, what you say if false. It's binary.

The 9/11 report elucidates that, including Saddams personal financial support for tero bombings in Israel, and Abu Abbas AND others hanging out in Bahgdad.

Oops. That's me above, horrified by misspellings. (Austarlia then fouth = Australia then fought....") D'oh!

Ohh Sandy, you go girl....be snarky !

these yshlamites are such cry babies...what did that poor danish female officer do ...? strike them with a toothbrush LOL.

I had a muslim friend several yrs ago whose Quran touting husband did a number on her eyes and face....so much for treating your wife kindly per the Quran. Let's see i recall one of the revisionist Imams appearing on t.v. explaining how the verse in the Quran permitting man to strike their wife/wives should really be interpreted as " tapping their wife with something as harmless as a 'toothbrush'...his arguement centered around the arabic word "dharaba" which means to "strike"...well the islamiskkk apologists want us to believe it means to 'tap lightly'. Funny , the modern usage of the world 'dharaba' still means strike, it does not say with how many lbs per square inch pressure one should strike LOL.

So you see..its always about 'words' isn't it when you deal with Ysssshlam...Adherents of this cult practise bibliolatry ( a form of idolatry ..worshiping a collection of WORDS./AL KALIMAAT)....of course they accuse everyone else of practising idolatry except their own cult)

Perhaps Officer Hommel of the Danes should not only have called off the water, but also used a larger tooth brush to 'tap' the prisoner. She might have gotten an answer faster. After all what's good for the goose is good for the gander - toothbrush, tapping and all !

O.k....Oeyvind also wrote above: "
Guilt by association is a nice technique. But that's about all it is."...there you go again Oeyvind with your absolutist and revisionist ideology! So you are implying once again with your oft quoted mantra that 'association' can never ever lead to anything -- certainly not guilt. Well, you would be pleasantly surprised to know that association is a good start in forensics ...with correlation you have possibility, with possibility you then figure in probability. You are quite stubborn with your 'mantra' are'nt you LOL :)

Also i notice your little apologistic article in your norwegian site--->

Antiislamistar må gjerne hevda at Muhammed var pedofil. Det spelar inga rolle. Det som spelar ei rolle er kva muslimar trur ( Dilletant.no site ) = anti-islamists would rather have Mohammad as a pedophile....but that's beside the point , what counts in the argumenent is what muslims believe ....Oh really and what do muslims believe...i thought you were the Islam expert? Don't
you know that muslims believe that their prophet is the bestest of creation? and that they strive to emulate him...and that is why in islamiskkk countries it's o.k. to marry off your daughter at such a tender age a la 'Aishah' !!!..so explain yourself when you say "...Det spelar inga rolle! ".... really ? "...inga rolle???"

Sister Ayesha Nyanaponika Kim
Specialist in irrational adamic cults
الخبير و إخصائيّ في الطّوائف الدّينيّة الخطيرة

Maybe you should take care to read my whole article, Sook-Im... or is the Norwegian too demanding?

To give you the correct translation of what you translated wrongly:

"Anti-islamists can claim that Muhammed was a pedophile if they want too. It does not matter. What does matter is what Muslims believe."

Later in the article I write the following:

"In the end this debate is only necessary for one group, those who want to demonize Islam. But Islam is no demonic power, and in the modern world most people - regardless of religion - will refuse pedophilia"

"Islam is what Muslims believe (it to be). Therefore the Islam critics should use their energy on more sensible Islam and religion critique. They could criticize how Islam views gay people and get gay Muslims on the team. They could criticize [...] Wahhabism and leading Muslim intellectuals would be on their team. If they absolutely wanted to talk about Aisha they could, instead of speculating about pedophilia, choose to criticize child marriages in some Muslim and some non-Muslim areas. Then they would even have a point [including Aisha in the discussion]."

After reading this, Sook-Im, you can practice the following: Try to criticize people for what their opinions are, not for what you THINK their opinions are.

Øyvind

Hola Oeyvind,
wazzup...yes i know what your opinions are...and no i did not translate wrongly, you are free wheeling with your translation to suit your leftological arguments/ as always :)...well you did say...that it does not matter in the arguement and that what matters is what muslims believe....so how did you get to be so ingenious in twisting the meaning of the norwegian to suit your needs ? as usual your logic is faulty and your arguments vacuous. And yes, double , triple yes, i am criticizing you for your opinions...i did not THUNK your thoughts you did the thunking.

Sister Ayesha Nyanaponika Kim
oh i thought you were a proponent of Samnorsk?

Actually, I will leave it up to others that are able to read Norwegian to consider my text and your translation.

Your translation is faulty, and for you to believe that your translation of my original article is more accurate than the translation of the native Norwegian speaker who actually wrote the article is... quite revealing.

Equally revealing is the fact that you claim that I have a mantra saying that "association" means nothing, although I have only mentioned "guilt by association" twice on this blog. In this post, and in a post where I said that there are some people one simply should not associate with.

That goes for Muslims too.

By the way, I am no Islam expert and I have never claimed to be. Unlike some people, ms. Specialist in irrational adamic cults, I do not run around claiming expertise in some field I do not have but an interest in.

Øyvind

more calorie intake level

wall poster

calorie table

nutrition

worksheet

instructional tools

MyPyramid.gov

http://eatrightcards.com/

sentence cereal

wall poster

chart

calorie table

nutrition

nutritional

teaching

http://eatrightcards.com/_bpages/5206.cfm?

don't game

Food pyramid

wall poster

chart

calorie table

teaching

MyPyramid.gov

http://eatrightcards.com/_bpages/7921.cfm?

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/770