Sunday, November 30, 2008

Mumbai Victims Were Tortured

I've already blogged much on the Mumbai attacks, but I feel an anger and revulsion in confronting, emotionally and intellectually, the scale of evil we are seeing.

This story on the likelihood that the Mumbai hostages were tortured only deepens my dread at all that has happened:

Doctors working in a hospital where all the bodies, including that of the terrorists, were taken said they had not seen anything like this in their lives ....

Asked what was different about the victims of the incident, another doctor said: "It was very strange. I have seen so many dead bodies in my life, and was yet traumatised. A bomb blast victim's body might have been torn apart and could be a very disturbing sight. But the bodies of the victims in this attack bore such signs about the kind of violence of urban warfare that I am still unable to put my thoughts to words," he said.

Asked specifically if he was talking of torture marks, he said: "It was apparent that most of the dead were tortured. What shocked me were the telltale signs showing clearly how the hostages were executed in cold blood," one doctor said.

The other doctor, who had also conducted the post-mortem of the victims, said: "Of all the bodies, the Israeli victims bore the maximum torture marks. It was clear that they were killed on the 26th itself. It was obvious that they were tied up and tortured before they were killed. It was so bad that I do not want to go over the details even in my head again," he said.

Corroborating the doctors' claims about torture was the information that the Intelligence Bureau had about the terror plan. "During his interrogation, Ajmal Kamal said they were specifically asked to target the foreigners, especially the Israelis," an IB source said.
I expect we'll see some policy-wonkish debates next week in Washington over how a "law-enforcement" approach is the best response to the latest round of terror (blah, blah ...).

Pam at Atlas Shrugs is outraged (and proposes not taking it any more):

I am angry. I am sick in my soul. The West refuses to engage this enemy that has declared all out war on our civilization. The media, the UN, the political elites bow to Islam. They refuse to speak its name. They refuse to stop immigration. They are afraid.


Ben Sutherland said...

"I expect we'll see some policy-wonkish debates next week in Washington over how a "law-enforcement" approach is the best response to the latest round of terror (blah, blah ...)."

Your blind revulsion to more sensible and effective policy is why your party just lost an election, Donald. It's why conservatives in other countries and so many conservatives in this country rooted and voted for Barack Obama.

Keep up the blind revulsion, Donald, and get used to losing elections. And that was all she wrote.

Anonymous said...

I'm sick and angry and pissed off as well. I just did a blog on the same subject.
I liked yours give mined a look.

Good luck

Anonymous said...

Mr Sutherland, law enforcement techniques are essentially helpless ones, because they require an actual crime to have been committed to pursue the bad guys. That means that we have to let the terrorists strike first before we can do anything about it.

Some of us don't think that's a particularly wise idea.

Anonymous said...

Well, the comment by "Da" was mine; for some reason, it published before I was through adding my ID.

Law and Order Teacher said...

Instead of your slash and burn commentary, how about some solutions. We are listening to those with good ideas. The law enforcement, US court solution has proven throughout the 90s to be pathetic and impotent. What's next? How about treating it as a war, because our enemies certainly are.

QuakerDave said...

Here we go again.

It's Islam's fault. As if Christians, Jews, and others of other faiths have never tortured and murdered in the name of some bastardized form of their religion.

Let's ignore what was done during the Spanish Inquisition, or to the early Quakers, for example. Christian to Christian.

The fact is that these evil people are CRIMINALS. When you attribute what they do to a religion, you give them a motive, as Scott Simon pointed out on NPR yesterday.

Here's a motive for you: They are evil. The Light in them has gone out. They are sociopaths.

A law enforcement solution doesn't mean waiting until they do something and then slappin' the cuffs on them. It means finding them and rooting them out and bringing them to justice.

When you attribute what they do to a "cause, you legitimize them.

Anonymous said...

Then there's always this.

Facts. As opposed to Ms. Spaulding's rabid rantings.


Anonymous said...

And then add:


AmPowerBlog said...

Dave: You mean Ms. Gellar's?

The facts are that Islam seeks to destroy the West, here and now, not in some ancient time of religious crusades, or whatever you're referring to.

We need to call it what it is, Islamist extremism that needs to be stamped out lest it threaten civilization. I'm sure your latte sippers at NPR make you feel good, while Jewish emmissaries doing the good works you always claim to endorse are tortured and killed by today's barbarians.

Law and Order Teacher said...

I agree with you on a couple of issues. First, these people cannot be allowed to hide behind religion as others have done throughout history. I would, however, add to your examples, the treatment of western European immigrants and of course our old friends the KKK, who burn crosses, for God sakes.

The light in them has truly gone out. Our priest continually says that the light in us is brighter and stronger than the darkness. Good point.

As for treating them as criminals, there's where we depart. If you are using the American justice system for your point of reference, it is a poor place to bring these kind of people. Any American trial will be a fiasco and a propaganda event for the accused. They will win by gumming up the system with the assistance of sympathetic attorneys looking for money and worse, publicity for a cause.

A military hearing is protective of rights if conducted by the standards of the UCMJ. More importantly, it deprives them of them of a pulpit for the hate.

GrEaT sAtAn'S gIrLfRiEnD said...

Really makes the case to keep on the offensive rather than do the FBI solve the crime thing.

Geopolitically this will draw India closer to the West and grant a regional ally to ruthlessly root out and destroy terror fanboys and maybe even start to take out illegit regimes that fool around with them.