The recent release of CIA Interrogation Memos has caused great consternation among many both in the US and around the world. The memo described the interrogation techniques used against suspected terrorists, authorised by the previous Bush administration.
The most controversial technique is waterboarding. Here, the prisoner's body is strapped on a board, legs fully stretched and hands tied behind his back around the board. The board is slanted to one side to position the prisoner’s head lower than his feet. The prisoner’s face is covered with a wet cloth and cold water will be poured over and over the prisoner’s face. With the cloth covering the face, the prisoner is not in danger of drowning but the prisoner will feel as if he is drowning and going to die. What the interrogators hope to achieve is that the prisoner will eventually succumb, beg for the procedure to stop and agree to cooperate with his captors.
US attorneys declared in 2002 that waterboarding causes "no pain or actual harm whatsoever". Therefore, it cannot be considered torture because it does not result into any "severe pain and suffering". Other US government officials claimed the technique will not cause any negative psychological effects and it is essentially the same technique used in US military trainings.
No matter how some people may want to twist it, waterboarding is indeed a method of torture. It is in fact something that has been practiced for at least a few hundred years, most notably during the 15th century Spanish Inquisition, World War II and the Vietnam War.
People have justified the use of such technique by citing the need to extract vital information from captured prisoners (click here to access an interesting presentation on the morality of waterboarding). I sympathise with such views and will not totally dismiss it despite my overall objection to the use of torture.
Some people here in Malaysia may think that this happens elsewhere only, not in this country. Well, you might just want to do some research on prisoners and detainees here to catch a glimpse of what has been going on in this 'peaceful' country of ours. One important reference is Dr. Syed Husin Ali's book Two Faces. Currently the Deputy President of Parti Keadilan Rakyat (Malaysia's main opposition political party), Dr. Syed Husin Ali who was then professor of anthropology at the University of Malaya, and member of the now defunct Malaysia's People Socialist Party (Parti Sosialis Rakyat Malaysia) was detained without trial under the Internal Security Act (ISA) for six years from 1974 to 1980.
In his book, Dr. Syed Husin described how he was slapped, punched and kicked repeatedly, and made to stand shirt-less while cold air from the air-condition was blasting straight towards him. Apparently, one of the things his interrogators wanted him to 'confess' was that Dr. Mahathir Mohamad (then Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia) was a communist agent! The good professor of course did not comply and had to endure detention under the ISA for his lack of cooperation.
During my brief stint working at the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) here in Kuala Lumpur, I heard worse accounts of tortures endured by illegal immigrants. I have no way to verify them of course but these stories, if indeed true, are real proof of Professor Philip Zimbardo's chilling theory on how easily ordinary human beings can be so evil and cruel to others.
All-in-all, let's hold on to one of the foundational values in all religions of the world: 'do onto others what you want others to do onto you'.
Related Article: Torture in detention: Guantanamo to Malaysia by Josh Hong
Showing posts with label Terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Terrorism. Show all posts
Monday, 27 April 2009
Tuesday, 7 April 2009
Nuclear-Free World
US President Barack Obama has expressed his vision of a nuclear-free world. Speaking in Prague, during his first official visit to Europe, President Obama explains that although the goal may not be achieved anytime soon, the United States, as the only country in history to have ever used nuclear weapons, has the moral responsibility to lead the mission and ensure the framework is firmly laid for other countries to follow.
Albert Einstein was the man who was partly responsible for the invention of nuclear weapons. He did not make them of course, but it was his theory of relativity which inspired the idea of such a ferocious weapon of mass destruction. He did however, at the start of World War II, encourage the Americans to develop the bomb. He even exerted some pressure on the Americans to do so as quickly as possible due to his fear of what might happen if Germany and Hitler managed to build it first.
Einstein nonetheless never expected the weapon would be used. He wanted the bomb to be made to scare the Germans off, to prevent them from pursuing their world conquering ambitions. In other words, the bomb was made to make the world safer from the dangers posed by the Germans.
When the bomb was eventually used on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Einstein became a very troubled man. He later on said, President Roosevelt (had he been alive) would never have authorised the use of nuclear bombs especially on civilian targets. And a few months before he died, Einstein was quoted to have said that the role he played in the creation of nuclear bombs was the "one great mistake in my life" (quoted in Robert Clark's book Einstein: The Life and Times)
Einstein's initial justification on why the bomb must be made is the exact same logic applied by countries with nuclear weapons today. They acquire nuclear arsenals allegedly not with the intention of using them, but to make their countries safer by preventing others from threatening and attacking them. On a smaller scale, the same justification is used by many countries to build up their military capabilities by allocating billions of dollars annually for their militaries.
Those who are for nuclear weapons and continuous military investment would often argue that the world is infested with bad and evil people. Weapons are needed to battle them. If we don't develop weapons, they will and the world will be in danger. So the good guys must have some weapons to prevent the bad guys from attacking others. And the good guys must also have the most powerful weapon, not for them to use it of course, but to scare the bad guys from causing massive destructions. Therefore, only the good guys must have nuclear weapons, and the bad guys should not.
Problem is, who decides who are the good guys and the bad guys? Who decides that the Indians are the good guys and the Pakistanis not? Who decides that Israel can have nuclear weapons and Iran cannot? What are the criteria used to decide who can and cannot have this and that?
I firmly support President Obama's call for a nuclear-free world. Since we can't really decide on who should and should not have it, everyone should not have it then. Unless of course, some people think we need the bomb to prevent alien invasion!
Albert Einstein was the man who was partly responsible for the invention of nuclear weapons. He did not make them of course, but it was his theory of relativity which inspired the idea of such a ferocious weapon of mass destruction. He did however, at the start of World War II, encourage the Americans to develop the bomb. He even exerted some pressure on the Americans to do so as quickly as possible due to his fear of what might happen if Germany and Hitler managed to build it first.
Einstein nonetheless never expected the weapon would be used. He wanted the bomb to be made to scare the Germans off, to prevent them from pursuing their world conquering ambitions. In other words, the bomb was made to make the world safer from the dangers posed by the Germans.
When the bomb was eventually used on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Einstein became a very troubled man. He later on said, President Roosevelt (had he been alive) would never have authorised the use of nuclear bombs especially on civilian targets. And a few months before he died, Einstein was quoted to have said that the role he played in the creation of nuclear bombs was the "one great mistake in my life" (quoted in Robert Clark's book Einstein: The Life and Times)
Einstein's initial justification on why the bomb must be made is the exact same logic applied by countries with nuclear weapons today. They acquire nuclear arsenals allegedly not with the intention of using them, but to make their countries safer by preventing others from threatening and attacking them. On a smaller scale, the same justification is used by many countries to build up their military capabilities by allocating billions of dollars annually for their militaries.
Those who are for nuclear weapons and continuous military investment would often argue that the world is infested with bad and evil people. Weapons are needed to battle them. If we don't develop weapons, they will and the world will be in danger. So the good guys must have some weapons to prevent the bad guys from attacking others. And the good guys must also have the most powerful weapon, not for them to use it of course, but to scare the bad guys from causing massive destructions. Therefore, only the good guys must have nuclear weapons, and the bad guys should not.
Problem is, who decides who are the good guys and the bad guys? Who decides that the Indians are the good guys and the Pakistanis not? Who decides that Israel can have nuclear weapons and Iran cannot? What are the criteria used to decide who can and cannot have this and that?
I firmly support President Obama's call for a nuclear-free world. Since we can't really decide on who should and should not have it, everyone should not have it then. Unless of course, some people think we need the bomb to prevent alien invasion!
Tuesday, 2 December 2008
The Making of Muslim Terrorists
Denial, is a common reaction among many Muslims to any news of terrorist acts committed by Muslims. At first the reaction will be: "a Muslim could not have done that", then to: "how can a Muslim do such a thing?", and finally the conclusion: "it must be a conspiracy!"
I was in Joensuu, Finland (barely two weeks since my arrival) when 911 occurred. I was first told of the attacks on the World Trade Centre when I came to the masjid on that day for evening prayers. And to be honest, when my Muslim brothers were talking about the attack, most of them were expressing a genuine feeling of jubilation. Yes, in jubilation that America was attacked in its own soil, and to a large extent, proud (not shame) that it was allegedly done by our fellow Muslim brothers.
It is always difficult for me to explain terrorist acts committed by Muslims. On one hand, I feel the need to explain this is not what Islam propagates while on the other, I cannot deny the atrocities committed by my fellow Muslims. Often, my arguments were defensive but ultimately, a point that I would vehemently defend is, blame the Muslims who committed these crimes, don’t blame Islam. Hence, there are in fact only Muslim terrorists, not 'Islamic' terrorists!
I’ve travelled across a few cities in Western Europe and in almost all of them, managed to spend some time at the masjids and talked with members of the local Muslim communities. In all these places, there were always groups of young, angry and high-spirited Muslims who displayed strong animosity towards America and the entire Western–kafir civilisation, and often times, wished and prayed for their total destruction.
From where does all this anger come from? My background in psychology propels me to focus on a more micro perspective, specifically in relation to the social psychological phenomenon called cognitive dissonance; a psychological discomfort that arises as a result of inconsistencies between one’s self-concept and behavioural actions.
Any Muslim who has experienced a deep sense of religious awakening, would very likely come across some of the well-known ahadith (Prophetic traditions) emphasising on the importance of ukhuwwah (Islamic brotherhood) and unity. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "The Muslims are like the limbs of a man, where if the eye hurts the whole body feels pain and if the head hurts, the whole body feels pain and suffering." And in another hadith emphasising on the responsibility of a Muslim to another, the Prophet said: "Whoever does not take an interest in the affairs and problems of the Muslims, he is not of them. And whoever's state is such that, each morning and evening, he is not loyal and earnest to Allah, his Apostle, His Book, the Islamic ruler and towards the Muslims as a whole, he is not of them."
Muslims who learn and internalise lessons from these narrations would feel a deep sense of connectedness, an emotional-spiritual bonding with Muslims all over the world across different countries and continents. Such feelings often transcend relations based on citizenship, race and ethnicity. It is with this deep and intense feeling of brotherhood that many Muslims began to develop a strong sense of sympathy toward Muslims inflicted with hardship and struggles. Hence when they hear and read about the sufferings of Muslims in Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq, they would ask themselves firstly: "have I done anything to help my Muslim brothers and sisters?", followed by the painful question: "what can/should I do to help them?"
For some, the behavioural reaction would be making some donations to charity funds for the suffering people. But for some others, that would not be enough. They would think that a Muslim should be able to do more than that. And when the hardships experienced by Muslims in these areas are associated with struggles against a non-Muslim enemy, the call for jihad will soon be heard. When this happens, many Muslims would respond positively to the call seeing it as a legitimate way to harmonise their self-concept as a devout Muslim responsible for defending his/her Muslim brothers, and their behavioural reactions from one which was docile and passive to a more active and confrontational approach. Armed with religious justification, these Muslims would thereon rally behind any groups whose ideology resonates with their newly found confrontational attitude. Being confrontational means to do whatever that is necessary to destroy the enemy which include resorting to committing acts of terrorism.
So, coming back to the common reactions among Muslims mentioned in the first paragraph, yes, Muslims are capable of becoming terrorists. In fact, it won’t surprise me if some of the terrorists in the recent Mumbai attack are neither Indians nor Pakistanis. They could very well be Muslims from the UK or any other Western countries, whose minds have been indoctrinated with intense hate and animosity. A book published last year The Islamist by Ed Husain, a British Muslim and former member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, outlines the author’s journey towards radicalism and explains how such an ideology can and have inspired acts of terrorism.
Conspiracy? The only thought I have along this line stems from the question, 'where these people get their weapons from?' There can’t be that many countries in the world that manufacture weapons. And weapons are also not cheap. Thus, the burning question in my mind, if most of these struggling Muslim communities don’t even have enough to cater for their basic needs, how did they get all these weapons?
Allahu'alam (Allah knows best)
In view of the need for Muslims to strive for the cause of Islam and to protect and defend our fellow Muslim brothers and sisters, are there other means to fulfil it other than through violence and terror? Something for all of us to think about...
Ma'as salam.
I was in Joensuu, Finland (barely two weeks since my arrival) when 911 occurred. I was first told of the attacks on the World Trade Centre when I came to the masjid on that day for evening prayers. And to be honest, when my Muslim brothers were talking about the attack, most of them were expressing a genuine feeling of jubilation. Yes, in jubilation that America was attacked in its own soil, and to a large extent, proud (not shame) that it was allegedly done by our fellow Muslim brothers.
It is always difficult for me to explain terrorist acts committed by Muslims. On one hand, I feel the need to explain this is not what Islam propagates while on the other, I cannot deny the atrocities committed by my fellow Muslims. Often, my arguments were defensive but ultimately, a point that I would vehemently defend is, blame the Muslims who committed these crimes, don’t blame Islam. Hence, there are in fact only Muslim terrorists, not 'Islamic' terrorists!
I’ve travelled across a few cities in Western Europe and in almost all of them, managed to spend some time at the masjids and talked with members of the local Muslim communities. In all these places, there were always groups of young, angry and high-spirited Muslims who displayed strong animosity towards America and the entire Western–kafir civilisation, and often times, wished and prayed for their total destruction.
From where does all this anger come from? My background in psychology propels me to focus on a more micro perspective, specifically in relation to the social psychological phenomenon called cognitive dissonance; a psychological discomfort that arises as a result of inconsistencies between one’s self-concept and behavioural actions.
Any Muslim who has experienced a deep sense of religious awakening, would very likely come across some of the well-known ahadith (Prophetic traditions) emphasising on the importance of ukhuwwah (Islamic brotherhood) and unity. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "The Muslims are like the limbs of a man, where if the eye hurts the whole body feels pain and if the head hurts, the whole body feels pain and suffering." And in another hadith emphasising on the responsibility of a Muslim to another, the Prophet said: "Whoever does not take an interest in the affairs and problems of the Muslims, he is not of them. And whoever's state is such that, each morning and evening, he is not loyal and earnest to Allah, his Apostle, His Book, the Islamic ruler and towards the Muslims as a whole, he is not of them."
Muslims who learn and internalise lessons from these narrations would feel a deep sense of connectedness, an emotional-spiritual bonding with Muslims all over the world across different countries and continents. Such feelings often transcend relations based on citizenship, race and ethnicity. It is with this deep and intense feeling of brotherhood that many Muslims began to develop a strong sense of sympathy toward Muslims inflicted with hardship and struggles. Hence when they hear and read about the sufferings of Muslims in Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq, they would ask themselves firstly: "have I done anything to help my Muslim brothers and sisters?", followed by the painful question: "what can/should I do to help them?"
For some, the behavioural reaction would be making some donations to charity funds for the suffering people. But for some others, that would not be enough. They would think that a Muslim should be able to do more than that. And when the hardships experienced by Muslims in these areas are associated with struggles against a non-Muslim enemy, the call for jihad will soon be heard. When this happens, many Muslims would respond positively to the call seeing it as a legitimate way to harmonise their self-concept as a devout Muslim responsible for defending his/her Muslim brothers, and their behavioural reactions from one which was docile and passive to a more active and confrontational approach. Armed with religious justification, these Muslims would thereon rally behind any groups whose ideology resonates with their newly found confrontational attitude. Being confrontational means to do whatever that is necessary to destroy the enemy which include resorting to committing acts of terrorism.
So, coming back to the common reactions among Muslims mentioned in the first paragraph, yes, Muslims are capable of becoming terrorists. In fact, it won’t surprise me if some of the terrorists in the recent Mumbai attack are neither Indians nor Pakistanis. They could very well be Muslims from the UK or any other Western countries, whose minds have been indoctrinated with intense hate and animosity. A book published last year The Islamist by Ed Husain, a British Muslim and former member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, outlines the author’s journey towards radicalism and explains how such an ideology can and have inspired acts of terrorism.
Conspiracy? The only thought I have along this line stems from the question, 'where these people get their weapons from?' There can’t be that many countries in the world that manufacture weapons. And weapons are also not cheap. Thus, the burning question in my mind, if most of these struggling Muslim communities don’t even have enough to cater for their basic needs, how did they get all these weapons?
Allahu'alam (Allah knows best)
In view of the need for Muslims to strive for the cause of Islam and to protect and defend our fellow Muslim brothers and sisters, are there other means to fulfil it other than through violence and terror? Something for all of us to think about...
Ma'as salam.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)