Related articles and links |  1 of 5

Military interrogator: 'How can I break the prisoner's reliance on God?'
The prison abuse story just took a dramatic turn, from a story about violating human dignity in general to violating religious conscience in specific. There were reports earlier that prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib were "forced to renounce their religion," but details were sketchy, and it was unclear just what kind of religious intimidation was used.

But now comes an Associated Press report that details at least one case that should make religious liberty watchdogs around the world jump to attention. It's based on a written account by Former Army Sgt. Erik R. Saar, who worked as a translator at the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay from December 2002 to June 2003. The AP's Paisley Dodds writes,

Saar describes a female military interrogator questioning an uncooperative 21-year-old Saudi detainee who allegedly had taken flying lessons in Arizona before the Sept. 11 terror attacks. … The man closed his eyes and began to pray, Saar writes.

The female interrogator wanted to "break him," Saar adds, describing how she removed her uniform top to expose a tight-fitting T-shirt and began taunting the detainee, touching her breasts, rubbing them against the prisoner's back and commenting on his apparent erection.

The detainee looked up and spat in her face, the manuscript recounts.

The interrogator left the room to ask a Muslim linguist how she could break the prisoner's reliance on God. The linguist told her to tell the detainee that she was menstruating, touch him, then make sure to turn off the water in his cell so he couldn't wash.

Strict interpretation of Islamic law forbids physical contact with women other than a man's wife or family, and with any menstruating women, who are considered unclean.

"The concept was to make the detainee feel that after talking to her he was unclean and was unable to go before his God in prayer and gain strength," says [Saar].

The interrogator used ink from a red pen to fool the detainee, Saar writes.

"She then started to place her hands in her pants as she walked behind the detainee," he says. "As she circled around him he could see that she was taking her hand out of her pants. When it became visible the detainee saw what appeared to be red blood on her hand. She said, 'Who sent you to Arizona?' He then glared at her with a piercing look of hatred.

"She then wiped the red ink on his face. He shouted at the top of his lungs, spat at her and lunged forward" — so fiercely that he broke loose from one ankle shackle.

"He began to cry like a baby," the draft says, noting the interrogator left saying, "Have a fun night in your cell without any water to clean yourself."

So, for at least one military interrogator, this may not be a war against Islam, but it is a war where we break Muslims' reliance on Allah by forcing them into what they consider sin.

Weblog eagerly awaits response from religious liberty groups and organizations who decry an antireligious and antimorality efforts in this country. Yes, we all agree it's wrong. What are we going to do about it?

War, terrorism & religious freedom:

• Homefront not at the forefront | If the World War II question, "Hey, buddy, don't you know there's a war on?" were asked today, the answer from American culture would be a resounding, "Um, no" (Newsday)
• Rabbi reflects on role in military religious-freedom case | High court ruled against S. Simcha Goldman's effort to wear yarmulke, but case prompted Congress to act to protect servicemen's religious rights (David L. Hudson Jr., First Amendment Center)

next page... |  1 of 5

January (Web-only) 2005, Vol. 49