backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 37 comment(s) - last by meatycheesyboy.. on Jul 31 at 10:34 PM

The Barney Theme Song is one of the tracks on the supposed torture play list

Most people can think of a few songs that simply drive them crazy. The U.S. military is reported to use music as a method of torture against prisoners in the Guantánamo Bay prison. The point of the music, according to the Guardian, is to induce sleep deprivation and drown out screams.

The Guardian has also posted a list of songs it says are used by the U.S. military as torture devices. The list includes songs like Enter Sandman by Metallica, Bodies by Drowning Pool, White America by Eminem, and the Barney Theme Song.

One song is specifically singled out by the Guardian as being used in the so called "torture playlist." The track is called Babylon by U.K. artist David Gray. Howard Knopf, a Canadian lawyer specializing in intellectual property, says that the U.S. military may owe Gray royalties for playing his music in a public space.

Knopf wrote in his blog, "Certain collectives are quick to collect money from those in nursing homes, hospitals, prisons etc, on the basis that these are 'public' places. Never mind that the audience is captive and it's their home, like it or not."

Gray told the BBC, "That is torture. It doesn't matter what the music is - it could be Tchaikovsky's finest or it could be Barney the Dinosaur. It really doesn't matter; it's going to drive you completely nuts."

In Europe, artists can veto where their music is played in public spaces. The catch here is the inability for Gray to veto the use of his music in an America territory when it is being used by the military. It would also be next to impossible for any music publisher to pursue the military for royalties.

Many may wonder if RIAA will tire of endlessly filing suits against Americans -- and on occasion losing them -- and start looking to get money out of the much deeper pockets of the U.S. military.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Canada will profit from this....
By oTAL (blog) on 7/29/2008 2:29:30 PM , Rating: 5
Royalties for torture music? Celine Dion will be RICH!!!




RE: Canada will profit from this....
By FITCamaro on 7/29/08, Rating: -1
RE: Canada will profit from this....
By Flunk on 7/29/2008 3:23:51 PM , Rating: 3
I think there is something serious to be said about the Meow Mix commercial. I've only heard it a few times but it still makes me want to gouge my eyes out just thinking of it. Repeated, it could kill.


By EglsFly on 7/29/2008 5:00:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I personally think its hilarious that they're torturing those guys with the Barney song. I'd prefer the water board.
They could instead have them read Hussein's book, "Audacity of the hopeless"! ;-)


RE: Canada will profit from this....
By Believer on 7/30/2008 7:51:49 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
But personally I think they should do whatever they have to to save innocent lives. Both those of our troops and Iraqi civilians.


I think it's funny how you can have those two sentences next to each other when it's undeniably so that 'some' of the Guantanamo prisoners 'are' innocent Iraqi... and Swedes, and Danes and what not with an US 'perceived' connection to anything 'perceived' as terrorist-like.

I mean, did anyone in there ever even get a trial to be convicted guilty before tossed in there, to listen to Barney and Celine Dion with their drowned out screams as the only musical alteration??? In cases I've heard of; No they did not.


RE: Canada will profit from this....
By FITCamaro on 7/30/2008 9:51:42 AM , Rating: 1
So we should just let them all go?

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/07/exg...

Sure was a good idea with that guy.


RE: Canada will profit from this....
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/30/2008 12:20:05 PM , Rating: 2
It's the false carebear mindset that the military made numberous mistakes and sent them to Gitmo(Extremely Unlikely). It's pretty damn hard to get sent to Gitmo, you have to be picked up for doing something the military regarded as hostile to get sent there. It's not like we sent everyone there, only a fraction of the people we pick up get sent to Gitmo.


RE: Canada will profit from this....
By Believer on 7/30/2008 2:42:29 PM , Rating: 3
Yes... and without trials and public information we are to take the good US Army's word for that this is the case.

Alas, most people who are released from Guantanamo (why are they released if they're guilty again???) seem to have different opinions about that.

Maybe you'd better wake up and make some healthy questioning and read some of the interviews with released prisoners. A lot of people were sent in package deals due to nothing more then the present company they were arrested in, or had their name on donation lists to some Muslim Organizations 'believed' to fund terrorism. Only it's unlikely the prison guards listen to such things to be true until they've played Barney for them 'till their ears bleed. "Innocent until proven guilty" does not reefer to Guantanamo, there it's more like "guilty until proven innocent".

A quick wiki reference says 420 out of the 775 people brought to Guantanamo since the start of the Afghanistan War have later been released without any charges pressed against them whatsoever... how could that be you think? Maybe because they weren't terrorists? Nah!


RE: Canada will profit from this....
By Spuke on 7/30/2008 4:26:59 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Yes... and without trials and public information we are to take the good US Army's word for that this is the case.
So we should just let them all go. Since we're in the dark about this place (nevermind the numerous other things we're in the dark about publicly), it would be fair and good to just let them all go. Then maybe people like yourself can go back and complain about the war in Iraq. Oh wait, you're already doing that.


By winterspan on 7/30/2008 11:44:34 PM , Rating: 5
quote:

Is there torture there? Probably. As there should be to get info out of these guys. We're far from the only country that does it... ...personally I think they should do whatever they have to to save innocent lives


Thankfully, the great founders of this country realized that the biggest threat to a nation actually comes from within, especially during times of "war", when an unchecked, belligerent government uses fear of a nebulous enemy and a fervent call to "patriotism" to subjugate it's citizens and deprive them of freedom, liberty, and their god-given rights.

They also knew, unfortunately, that there would be many ignorant, myopic, and morally-depraved individuals like yourself who would so willingly give up the fundamental principles on which our nation was founded, and in doing so squander the sacrifices of all of those who have died fighting for those very same principles that insure our freedom and individual liberties.

Because of their incredible foresight and wisdom, they wrote a powerful constitution that limits the power of government over the people, mandates checks and balances of authority, and GUARANTEES the rights of ALL individuals as spelled out in the bill of rights and other sections.

The vehement refusal to allow this villainous administration to operate outside of the constitution and carry out the policies of a totalitarian state is certainly NOT a "liberal" position by any stretch of the imagination.

I will not support a government that is torturing prisoners, holding detainees indefinitely without charge, denying Geneva convention rights and access to legal representation, running International rendition flights to countries that practice torture, wholesale wiretapping of American citizens without court oversight, manipulating and deceiving the country into a an illegitimate pre-emptive war, widespread expansion of government and executive power, stonewalling congress on investigations into wrongdoing and illegitimate claims of "executive privilege" to avoid prosecution, intentional overstepping of executive authority, constant attempts to evade judicial and legislative oversight, rolling back of government transparency, unorthodox and illegal use of presidential signing statements, unconstitutional executive branch interference in and censorship of federal EPA scientific research, using federal resources for political propaganda, politicizing of non-partisan governmental bodies, secretive intelligence briefings with members of the press, etc. These are not actions of the America I know.


WTF
By SandmanWN on 7/29/2008 1:40:47 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone else notice the source of this report is a blog with pink highlights?




RE: WTF
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/29/2008 1:44:44 PM , Rating: 2
Source as listed in the first paragraph:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/jul/09/news.c...

The link you are talking about is just a list of the songs used.


RE: WTF
By SandmanWN on 7/29/2008 2:00:41 PM , Rating: 2
Nice edit on the source. Its still basically a blog. You have a Canadian lawyer talking to a UK site about a music play list in a US Military prison with no sources. Unless you count their blog link as a source, their source being their own blog.


RE: WTF
By TSS on 7/29/2008 3:29:29 PM , Rating: 2
the word "chart" in the text on the guardian's blog links to a website called mother jones. on there is a message posted feb. 22 updated march 4, which is the source for the articles, appearanly. theres another link on the page linking to a 3 page article about one of the guards there.

http://motherjones.com/news/featurex/2008/03/tortu...

besides that, why does the source matter for a blogpost?


RE: WTF
By SandmanWN on 7/29/2008 3:38:52 PM , Rating: 2
it was moved to blog section.


RE: WTF
By Eri Hyva on 7/30/2008 3:55:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Its still basically a blog.


Nope.
The Guardian is on of the big respected newspapers in the UK.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/information/0,,711853,00...

If you are not happy with the article, contact editor-in-chief.

http://www.abc.org.uk/cgi-bin/gen5?runprog=nav/abc...


By vwgtiron on 7/30/2008 1:22:06 AM , Rating: 1
I would have to say you must be a reporter to have taken a qoute out of context like that and changed its whole meaning. IANAL however i can say looking at the next line of text that you have subverted the meaning of the statement. And I quote(the next line)
"In seriousness, if you actually watch the report with the female officer who worked at Gitmo, you'd see its a far stretch from the hell hole the liberal media paints it to be. Is there torture there? Probably. As there should be to get info out of these guys. We're far from the only country that does it. And we're far more civil considering we don't cut off guys heads and brag about it on television even if they do give us information."
What is any different from the way you used the statement to your own ends and the way our government uses the la