maelorin: (hurt)
2006-03-15 12:06 am

"deprogramming" terrorists

The idea that terrorists might be people after all, is beginning to seep in ... from Indonesia. Rehabilitation of terrorists is being considered as a real possibility.

This idea put forward by Police Commissioner Mick Keelty on telly last night, that the Australian government is considering a system of rehabilitating terrorists, is quite extraordinary.

It is extraordinary because until now the kill, kill, kill approach has been adhered to so steadfastly by our political leaders.

MICK KEELTY: Well, it would require a policy change here and, to put it into some perspective here, if you take, for example, the problem of drugs, for many years people have thought, well, can we force people into treatment to get them to overcome their problem? Even in the jail system, can we impose a treatment regime on people and it's a policy question that really hasn't been addressed here and really certainly hasn't been imposed. There's nowhere in Australia where drug addicts, if you like, are forced into treatment to overcome their problem. So, essentially, it would be a threshold question in terms of policy as to whether we would engage in something that forces people into some sort of deprogramming or deradicalisation.

The terms 'brainwashing' and 'deprogramming' and 're-education' get bandied about in this discussion. Language such as 'turned him around' is used.

I seem to recall that psychology has distanced itself from the notion of 'brainwashing', and the other terms just feel wrong to me ... after three years immersed in the art and technology of propaganda, it all still gives me the creeps.

It would still be better to address the causes, to defuse the circumstances that foster and foment hatred, than to be playing the ethically dangerous game of 'reshaping' someone's values to suit your own ideals - your own ideology.

That path leads to the very same gardens ...
maelorin: (hurt)
2006-03-15 12:06 am

"deprogramming" terrorists

The idea that terrorists might be people after all, is beginning to seep in ... from Indonesia. Rehabilitation of terrorists is being considered as a real possibility.

This idea put forward by Police Commissioner Mick Keelty on telly last night, that the Australian government is considering a system of rehabilitating terrorists, is quite extraordinary.

It is extraordinary because until now the kill, kill, kill approach has been adhered to so steadfastly by our political leaders.

MICK KEELTY: Well, it would require a policy change here and, to put it into some perspective here, if you take, for example, the problem of drugs, for many years people have thought, well, can we force people into treatment to get them to overcome their problem? Even in the jail system, can we impose a treatment regime on people and it's a policy question that really hasn't been addressed here and really certainly hasn't been imposed. There's nowhere in Australia where drug addicts, if you like, are forced into treatment to overcome their problem. So, essentially, it would be a threshold question in terms of policy as to whether we would engage in something that forces people into some sort of deprogramming or deradicalisation.

The terms 'brainwashing' and 'deprogramming' and 're-education' get bandied about in this discussion. Language such as 'turned him around' is used.

I seem to recall that psychology has distanced itself from the notion of 'brainwashing', and the other terms just feel wrong to me ... after three years immersed in the art and technology of propaganda, it all still gives me the creeps.

It would still be better to address the causes, to defuse the circumstances that foster and foment hatred, than to be playing the ethically dangerous game of 'reshaping' someone's values to suit your own ideals - your own ideology.

That path leads to the very same gardens ...
maelorin: (complete boob)
2006-02-25 10:17 pm
Entry tags:

if only he wasn't kidding

US losing web war, says Rumsfeld
Daniel Trotta in New York
FEBRUARY 20, 2006

THE US lags al Qaida in getting out information in the digital media age and must update its old-fashioned methods, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said

Modernisation is crucial to winning the hearts and minds of Muslims worldwide who are bombarded with negative images of the West, Mr Rumsfeld told the Council on Foreign Relations.

The Pentagon chief said today's weapons of war included email, Blackberries, instant messaging, digital cameras and blogs.

"Our enemies have skillfully adapted to fighting wars in today's media age, but ? our country has not adapted," Mr Rumsfeld said.

"For the most part, the US government still functions as a 'five and dime' store in an eBay world," Mr Rumsfeld said.

Mr Rumsfeld said US military public affairs officers must learn to anticipate news and respond faster, and good public affairs officers should be rewarded with promotions.

The military's information offices still operate mostly eight hours a day, five or six days a week while the challenges they faces occur 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Mr Rumsfeld called that a "dangerous deficiency."

Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy immediately criticised Mr Rumsfeld as missing the point.

"Clearly, we need to improve our public diplomacy and information age communication in the Muslim world," Senator Kennedy said in a statement. "But nothing has done more to encourage increased al Qaida recruitment and made America less safe than the war in Iraq and the incompetent way it's been managed. Our greatest failure is our policy."

Mr Rumsfeld said that vast media attention about US abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq outweighed that given to the discovery of "Saddam Hussein's mass graves".

On the emergence of satellite television and other media not under Arab state control, he said, "While al Qaeda and extremist movements have utilised this forum for many years - we in the government have barely even begun to compete in reaching their audiences."

Reuters

wtfomgbbq!
maelorin: (complete boob)
2006-02-25 10:17 pm
Entry tags:

if only he wasn't kidding

US losing web war, says Rumsfeld
Daniel Trotta in New York
FEBRUARY 20, 2006

THE US lags al Qaida in getting out information in the digital media age and must update its old-fashioned methods, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said

Modernisation is crucial to winning the hearts and minds of Muslims worldwide who are bombarded with negative images of the West, Mr Rumsfeld told the Council on Foreign Relations.

The Pentagon chief said today's weapons of war included email, Blackberries, instant messaging, digital cameras and blogs.

"Our enemies have skillfully adapted to fighting wars in today's media age, but ? our country has not adapted," Mr Rumsfeld said.

"For the most part, the US government still functions as a 'five and dime' store in an eBay world," Mr Rumsfeld said.

Mr Rumsfeld said US military public affairs officers must learn to anticipate news and respond faster, and good public affairs officers should be rewarded with promotions.

The military's information offices still operate mostly eight hours a day, five or six days a week while the challenges they faces occur 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Mr Rumsfeld called that a "dangerous deficiency."

Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy immediately criticised Mr Rumsfeld as missing the point.

"Clearly, we need to improve our public diplomacy and information age communication in the Muslim world," Senator Kennedy said in a statement. "But nothing has done more to encourage increased al Qaida recruitment and made America less safe than the war in Iraq and the incompetent way it's been managed. Our greatest failure is our policy."

Mr Rumsfeld said that vast media attention about US abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq outweighed that given to the discovery of "Saddam Hussein's mass graves".

On the emergence of satellite television and other media not under Arab state control, he said, "While al Qaeda and extremist movements have utilised this forum for many years - we in the government have barely even begun to compete in reaching their audiences."

Reuters

wtfomgbbq!
maelorin: (Default)
2005-07-28 01:18 pm

incitement

seems everyone has an opinion on incitement these days. particularly in support of laws prohibiting it.

but just what is incitement? who gets to decide? and what is to be done about it that doesn't simply entrench the opinions it represents?

what happens if it is a government that is incitining? can a government incite?

maelorin: (Default)
2005-07-28 01:18 pm

incitement

seems everyone has an opinion on incitement these days. particularly in support of laws prohibiting it.

but just what is incitement? who gets to decide? and what is to be done about it that doesn't simply entrench the opinions it represents?

what happens if it is a government that is incitining? can a government incite?

maelorin: (eye)
2005-07-21 03:36 pm

re chatham house report

it's amusing, and alarming, to hear politicians getting themselves all confused.

take, for example, mr jack straw, foreign secretary of the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland. mr straw got hot under the collar about a report written by an independant foreign affairs think tank, Chatham House (formerly known as The Royal Institute of International Affairs). The think tank, amongst other things, concluded that:
A key problem for the UK in preventing terrorism in Britain's the government’s position as ‘pillion passenger’ to the United States' war on terror. Formulating counter-terrorism policy in this way has left the 'ally in the driving seat' to do the steering. This is one of the key findings of Security, Terrorism and the UK, a new, long-planned briefing paper to be published on Monday 18 July by Chatham House and the Economic & Social Research Council.1
in response, mr straw thought that the following was appropriate:
"The time for excuses for terrorism is over," he said. "The terrorists have struck across the world, in countries allied with the United States, backing the war in Iraq and in countries which had nothing whatever to do with the war in Iraq."2
seems to me that mr straw has trouble distinguishing between a conclusion about risk factors, and political statements about policy.

The Chatham House report, written by Frank Gregory, of the University of Southampton, and Professor Paul Wilkinson, of the University of St Andrews, said: "There is no doubt that the situation over Iraq has imposed particular difficulties for the UK, and for the wider coalition against terrorism."

They added: "The UK is at particular risk because it is the closest ally of the United States."3

perhaps the only people who can't figure out that direct invovlement in trampling around on the territory that al-qaeda was created to protect might have some connection to a risk of attracting al-qaeda's attention are the politicians making the decisions to be trampling around in the middle east (and associated 'islamic states/territories) ...

it's unfortunate that western leaders can't wriggle out of their own propaganda straight-jackets to accept that accepting the fact that their choices have associated risks, is not the same as:
  1. saying the choices were wrong; or
  2. justifying the associated risks; or
  3. making excuses for anyone; or
  4. wanking in public.

but then, i may have just hit the nub of the problem.

if the politician's had been less evasive about why they wanted western military intervention in afghanistan and/or iraq in the first place, they'd be having less difficulty 'selling' the consequences now.


  1. Chatham House, Press release: "New report on terrorism and the UK", Monday 18 July 2005.
    <
    http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/index.php?id=189&pid=247>
  2. James Sturcke and agencies, "Straw rejects war link to bombings", The Guardian Unlimited, Monday, July 18, 2005.
    <
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1531005,00.html>
  3. Chatham House, Press release: "New report on terrorism and the UK", Monday 18 July 2005.
    <
    http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/index.php?id=189&pid=247>
maelorin: (eye)
2005-07-21 03:36 pm

re chatham house report

it's amusing, and alarming, to hear politicians getting themselves all confused.

take, for example, mr jack straw, foreign secretary of the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland. mr straw got hot under the collar about a report written by an independant foreign affairs think tank, Chatham House (formerly known as The Royal Institute of International Affairs). The think tank, amongst other things, concluded that:
A key problem for the UK in preventing terrorism in Britain's the government’s position as ‘pillion passenger’ to the United States' war on terror. Formulating counter-terrorism policy in this way has left the 'ally in the driving seat' to do the steering. This is one of the key findings of Security, Terrorism and the UK, a new, long-planned briefing paper to be published on Monday 18 July by Chatham House and the Economic & Social Research Council.1
in response, mr straw thought that the following was appropriate:
"The time for excuses for terrorism is over," he said. "The terrorists have struck across the world, in countries allied with the United States, backing the war in Iraq and in countries which had nothing whatever to do with the war in Iraq."2
seems to me that mr straw has trouble distinguishing between a conclusion about risk factors, and political statements about policy.

The Chatham House report, written by Frank Gregory, of the University of Southampton, and Professor Paul Wilkinson, of the University of St Andrews, said: "There is no doubt that the situation over Iraq has imposed particular difficulties for the UK, and for the wider coalition against terrorism."

They added: "The UK is at particular risk because it is the closest ally of the United States."3

perhaps the only people who can't figure out that direct invovlement in trampling around on the territory that al-qaeda was created to protect might have some connection to a risk of attracting al-qaeda's attention are the politicians making the decisions to be trampling around in the middle east (and associated 'islamic states/territories) ...

it's unfortunate that western leaders can't wriggle out of their own propaganda straight-jackets to accept that accepting the fact that their choices have associated risks, is not the same as:
  1. saying the choices were wrong; or
  2. justifying the associated risks; or
  3. making excuses for anyone; or
  4. wanking in public.

but then, i may have just hit the nub of the problem.

if the politician's had been less evasive about why they wanted western military intervention in afghanistan and/or iraq in the first place, they'd be having less difficulty 'selling' the consequences now.


  1. Chatham House, Press release: "New report on terrorism and the UK", Monday 18 July 2005.
    <
    http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/index.php?id=189&pid=247>
  2. James Sturcke and agencies, "Straw rejects war link to bombings", The Guardian Unlimited, Monday, July 18, 2005.
    <
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1531005,00.html>
  3. Chatham House, Press release: "New report on terrorism and the UK", Monday 18 July 2005.
    <
    http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/index.php?id=189&pid=247>