Iraq Interpreter Mask Ban: Congress Gets Involved

[babylonsister]

http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2230

Iraq Interpreter Mask Ban: Congress Gets Involved
by: Brandon Friedman
Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 02:07:59 AM EST


It's not just the troops, translators, and media who are furious over the move to ban Iraqi interpreters from wearing masks to conceal their identities. Now the U.S. Congress is getting involved:

Thirteen members of Congress and an association of interpreters this week urged the Pentagon to rescind a policy that prohibits interpreters who work with U.S. troops in Baghdad from wearing ski masks to conceal their identity.

The U.S. military command for the Baghdad region said it began enforcing the mask ban strictly in September because masked interpreters undermined the professional image the military strives to project. The military also said the sharp reduction in violence in Baghdad has made wearing masks unnecessary.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and 12 members of the House of Representatives on Thursday sent a letter to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates urging him to allow interpreters to wear masks.

"Members of Congress were dumbfounded," Wyden said in an interview yesterday. "The Pentagon's position defies common sense."

At least half a dozen major milblogs, one prestigious magazine, two newspapers, 13 members of Congress, and every Iraq veteran to whom I've spoken about the story think the policy is a careless, dumb idea. On the other side, so far I've heard a single guy--Army Lt. Col. Steve Stover--come out to defend it. So here's my question: Will anyone else at the Pentagon come out to publicly defend this flawed policy? Or are they just gonna leave Stover out there hanging--looking like the bad guy? Who in the Army actually supports this policy?

[happyslug]

1. How would you liked to be questioned by a man in a black ski mask?

Remember the person being asked questions is hearing NOT from the soldiers but from the translator. It is the translator that ask the question the Iraqi understands. The mere fact that you do NOT see a person's face can make the whole exercise appear to be one of interrogation NOT questioning. The act is a well known technique by secret police all over the world as a intimidation tactic (along with mirror sunglasses, so people can no see the questioner's eyes).

My point is that the mask bring with it all the problems of being robbed (i.e. robbers hide their face). Furthermore it means the person being questioned can NOT see how his words are affecting the person doing the questioning (i.e. the translator, who is the person asking the questions). This is intimidation at it best, and something that any person NOT doing interrogations would want to avoid. Thus the army wants to end the use of Masks. The problem is the translator are claiming that without the masks people will see who they are and later try to kill them. The army says this is NOT true (Probably because the Translators are NOT from the same group as the people they are translating for and against but that ADDS to the intimidation affect).

More an explanation of the Army's position, which is do to the problem that the Army is fighting an internal enemy and against such an enemy the politics of interpersonal communications is an area of "Combat" (i.e. we need to get the people to look to us are protectors NOT occupiers, and the best way to do that is to act as protectors NOT occupiers and that means get rid of the Masks).

[babylonsister]

2. The interpreter wants to protect his, and thus his family's, identity.

The military is only concerned about their 'professional image'. Yea, I have a problem with that.

[Fumesucker]

3. Since you didn't answer the question I'll ask it once more..

How would you like it if you or a loved one of yours was questioned by a person in a black mask?

[anonymous171]

4. They are intepreters, not questioners.

[Fumesucker]

7. And if they happen to misinterpret a bit..

How are the Americans going to know?

Put yourself in the shoes of an Iraqi, how would you like to be interrogated by someone in a mask at the behest of foreign invaders?

[babylonsister]

5. What, a dual identity?

I have never had an occasion to be questioned by anyone. I'm sure I wouldn't like it, but that's besides the point. I don't blame the interpreters at all for wanting to protect their identity. Seems like VetVoices and members of Congress are of the same opinion.

[Fumesucker]

6. I understand why the interpreters want to wear masks..

And I don't blame them.

But the interpreters have a great deal of power over the average Iraqi, I know how I would feel if a masked person was to interrogate me on behalf of foreign invaders and I don't want to subject Iraqis to something that I wouldn't want to happen to me or to anyone else either.

[babylonsister]

8. You seem to be forgetting the interpreters are most likely Iraqi.

Why is compromising their safety an option?

[Fumesucker]

9. Turn the tables around

Iraq invaded and occupied the US and is using American quislings for interpreters.

Should the quislings be protected from the American people?

You are acting as though the Iraq invasion and occupation is legitimate, it's not.

[babylonsister]

10. Never said it was, so stop putting words in my mouth. Whether

this occupation is right or wrong, and we both know it's wrong, these people are working for us and should be protected. I'm not alone in figuring that out, and I'm done arguing with you.

Edit to add: They keep this up, they'll find themselves w/o translators all together.