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 law to their own ends? Remember it has to start somewhere Mr Black Kettle.


By meatycheesyboy on 7/30/2008 2:46:20 AM , Rating: 2
I think you're misunderstanding me here. The words I quoted in my original post were not a misquote of FITcamaro's. It was a quote from a sentence that was in the original Daily Post blog above but was immediately removed after I posted my original message. Just look at the time stamp, my message was posted BEFORE the one you're saying I'm misquoting.


By vwgtiron on 7/30/2008 3:06:39 AM , Rating: 2
Ahh, I am enlightened and I apologize. I should have caught that.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/30/2008 12:26:05 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Seriously, what the heck is up with a comment like this in the article? Someone being held captive should be glad they're being tortured?

Don't get captured by the oposing faction and get sent to Gitmo. Sounds like a pretty easy way to avoid torture. If I got captured by one of these militant groups, torture would be the least of my problems. Water Boarding, and bad music are very tame in comparison. I know you guys like to sit on the moral high ground, but at some point reality needs to take over and some form of torture is necessary.


By PrinceGaz on 7/30/2008 4:47:34 PM , Rating: 2
Torture is never necessary, and rarely reliable because most people can be forced to say almost anything when tortured sufficiently or for long enough. Whether that torture involves knives and hot-pokers, or sleep-deprivation and water-boarding is irrelevant as the "information" gained through using them is unreliable.


By meatycheesyboy on 7/31/2008 10:34:08 PM , Rating: 2
You're drawing conclusions on my views based on nothing but incorrect inferrence. Nothing that I wrote could logically lead anyone to any conlusion about my views on torture and whether or not it should be practised.

All I said was that at no time should someone be glad that they're getting tortured in one way as opposed to another. At no time should someone be happy that they're being mentally punished through music as opposed to physically punished by waterboarding or vice versa. I was just pointing out that it was a silly statement to make in the article.


Is Guantanamo Bay a U.S. Territory?
By cityplannerx on 7/29/2008 2:13:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
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.


According to my research, the U.S. Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay is the oldest existing U.S. military base located outside U.S. territory . Therefore, does RIAA or artists have legal authority over what the U.S. military does with their music at Guantanamo? Just curious.




RE: Is Guantanamo Bay a U.S. Territory?
By vwgtiron on 7/30/2008 1:15:22 AM , Rating: 2
A U.S. military base is considered US soil. Just like an embassy. So therefore any law that is enforced in the U.S. should in theory again "in theory" be enforced within said installation. I know that anyone born on a U.S. military base is considered a united states citizen.(okay your parents have to be us citizens as well but that's just a technicality.


RE: Is Guantanamo Bay a U.S. Territory?
By blaster5k on 7/30/2008 5:47:04 PM , Rating: 1
If you find somebody shooting at you overseas and they aren't part of a standing army and they aren't US citizens, why should they have the same rights as US citizens? Even Geneva conventions (which offer less protection) only apply to uniformed military forces from countries that have signed the treaties.


By Eri Hyva on 7/30/2008 6:28:23 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
shooting at you

Well, obviously they weren't shooting at you.
At least those 420 out of the 775 prisoners released without any charges pressed against them.

Of the remaining 350, how many convictions are there? Zero.
(Of those still incarcerated, U.S. officials said they intend to eventually put 60 to 80 on trial and free the rest.)

So your point is that the US Army can go to some foreign country, kidnap 750 people (non US citizens), put them on a plane and lock them up for years (5 and counting) in a place far far away without a trial?

That's how the Free people work? Live up to your values? Or are there any values left?

So basically you say the US Army can do anything they wish (do not have to comply to US laws) as long as it is not happening on US mainland.

See no evil, here no evil.

Maybe you could expand your kidnapping business and open a IG Farben branch factory on Guantanamo Bay, and tell the Army the fetch work force from Africa and the Middle East. No obligation to US laws needed, of course.


same
By dever on 7/29/2008 1:39:07 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
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.
Pockets of US military = Pockets of Americans




RE: same
By djkrypplephite on 7/30/2008 2:54:52 AM , Rating: 2
Pockets of U.S. Military . . . not THAT deep.


By Creig on 7/30/2008 8:40:17 PM , Rating: 3
Can you imagine how insulted a songwriter/band would be to learn that one of their songs is being used specifically to torture people? I think they would rather just lay low and hope nobody else learned about it. Otherwise, they would become a laughingstock to the rest of the industry.




Losing you DT
By pauldovi on 7/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: Losing you DT
By DASQ on 7/29/2008 1:51:02 PM , Rating: 2
Well, if you noticed the suffix of the word 'DailyTech', that being 'Tech', which is a contracted form of 'technology', I think most of the topics are pretty relevant to science and technology (which always go hand in hand, no matter what).


Song List...
By VenomSymbiote on 7/29/2008 7:44:01 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone else think it's ironic that "Bulls on Parade" is on that list?




What? No Banana Phone on that list?
By Akazar on 7/30/2008 11:25:28 AM , Rating: 2
Rap Music
By Bill2001 on 7/30/2008 8:24:48 PM , Rating: 2
They could donate some for the cause.




We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs

















botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki