Abu Ghraib: Much worse than I thought
Based on the 60 Minutes report, I originally thought this was just an isolated incident involving yahoos, and that no one was physically hurt. The Hersh article says this is much worse, and the responsibiilty for at least covering it up might go much higher. Not only that, we might have been employing private torturers. This is not good; it will require people at a high level to be at least fired, and not just Reserve members. It might also require a structural change regarding how we do business and under what circumstances we employee Wackenhut-style companies.
That does not excuse members of the left who want to use this for political purposes or as part of a general plan to bash AmeriKKKa.
It also does not excuse groups - some in the U.S., some outside - who will condemn this to the skies, but who fail to condemn or who attempt to apologize away even worse acts committed against Americans.
However, the allegations about prisoner abuse by British troops may be false.
The piece 'We're fighting for the right to be outraged at those photos' includes this:
Still, the outrage felt at those photos of torture is what makes this society worth living in. It distinguishes us from our enemies. But, like everything, this outrage has a price. If it is to conclude that we should not defend ourselves against the Saddams of the world, then it is too dear. The secret is to retain the outrage and not draw that conclusion. We have to keep two thoughts parallel in our heads - these are appalling acts that must not be tolerated, but neither are they to be used as a block against our instincts of self-preservation or to render us defenceless against the worst systems and enemies of civilisation...
UPDATE: Someone else says the British photos are fakes, while the Mirror stands by its story.
Comments
gotcha (not verified)
Fri, 05/07/2004 - 20:54
Permalink
ABU GHRAIB HYPOCRISY
First let me say that these crimes must be punished. Everyone is shocked and disgusted by this psychological torture and humiliation, which will effect the victims for the rest of their lives.
But the International Community's reaction is riddled with hypocrisy:
1. Bad treatment for US troops?
It is conventional wisdom among pundits that ill-treatment by a few US troops will result in worse treatment against American POWs. Really?
In the past, US POWS and even civilians have hardly been treated according to the Geneva Conventions. Daniel Pearl beheaded, the Fallujah four mutilated and burned, Jessica Lynch raped come to mind. Tiger cages and torture in Vietnam, forced death marches and executions during WWII. Perhaps the pundits could tell me of a conflict where American POWs were protected?
The threat of bad treatment for POWs might have more effect if it hadn't already happened.
2. Torture=bad, Torture-Killing=Good?
How did the world respond when 4 civilians were tortured, mutilated, burned, shot, executed, their bodies parts burned, stepped on, dragged and hung from bridges? In much of the press, it was hardly denounced, and actually used as more evidence of either American failure or blame was cast on the non-combatant civilian workers as being "spieds" or "mercenaries".
Clearly a few humiliating sexual poses would be preferable to mutilation-death-desecration. Apparently rape, torture, mutilation and execution of Americans POWs and even civilians is okay....
3. Demand for apologies
Here's the game:
-If you only apologize, Iraqis will forgive you
-Bush and others apologize
-Declare these apologies invalid for some reason -- they were too indirect, they were personal statements, etc.
-The apology provokes no forgiveness, only shrill denunciations about trying to sneak out of responsibility. A Saudi paper screamed "Killers should apologize!"
4. War=Bad, Terror=Good?
This is a part of a larger pattern of hypocrisy: War is "evil", terror is good. War by nations against nations is wrong. Civil war and insurgency are "heroic". Thus, nations which fight wars must be harangued for real and imagined war-crimes, while their insurgent, terrorist counterparts can extermination civilians, rape, torture and mutilate with impunity---after all, they are not governments, so how can they be held responsible.
Thus, the rape of Jessica Lynch and female soldiers in the first Gulf War are laughed off. Thus, executions of American civilians like Daniel Pearl and an elderly wheel-chair bound Achille Lauro passenger is never called a war crime--the terrorists act with impunity. Only wars are protested; Terrorist atrocities and war crimes are laughed off, ignored, or worse, secretly sympathized and justified.
5. Get ready for more hypocrisy
Some Iraqis despite official apologies and even compensation ,and despite experts from the Arab media who claimed that
gotcha (not verified)
Fri, 05/07/2004 - 20:53
Permalink
ABU GHRAIB HYPOCRISY
First let me say that these crimes must be punished. Everyone is shocked and disgusted by this psychological torture and humiliation, which will effect the victims for the rest of their lives.
But the International Community's reaction is riddled with hypocrisy:
1. Bad treatment for US troops?
It is conventional wisdom among pundits that ill-treatment by a few US troops will result in worse treatment against American POWs. Really?
In the past, US POWS and even civilians have hardly been treated according to the Geneva Conventions. Daniel Pearl beheaded, the Fallujah four mutilated and burned, Jessica Lynch raped come to mind. Tiger cages and torture in Vietnam, forced death marches and executions during WWII. Perhaps the pundits could tell me of a conflict where American POWs were protected?
The threat of bad treatment for POWs might have more effect if it hadn't already happened.
2. Torture=bad, Torture-Killing=Good?
How did the world respond when 4 civilians were tortured, mutilated, burned, shot, executed, their bodies parts burned, stepped on, dragged and hung from bridges? In much of the press, it was hardly denounced, and actually used as more evidence of either American failure or blame was cast on the non-combatant civilian workers as being "spieds" or "mercenaries".
Clearly a few humiliating sexual poses would be preferable to mutilation-death-desecration. Apparently rape, torture, mutilation and execution of Americans POWs and even civilians is okay....
3. Demand for apologies
Here's the game:
-If you only apologize, Iraqis will forgive you
-Bush and others apologize
-Declare these apologies invalid for some reason -- they were too indirect, they were personal statements, etc.
-The apology provokes no forgiveness, only shrill denunciations about trying to sneak out of responsibility. A Saudi paper screamed "Killers should apologize!"
4. War=Bad, Terror=Good?
This is a part of a larger pattern of hypocrisy: War is "evil", terror is good. War by nations against nations is wrong. Civil war and insurgency are "heroic". Thus, nations which fight wars must be harangued for real and imagined war-crimes, while their insurgent, terrorist counterparts can extermination civilians, rape, torture and mutilate with impunity---after all, they are not governments, so how can they be held responsible.
Thus, the rape of Jessica Lynch and female soldiers in the first Gulf War are laughed off. Thus, executions of American civilians like Daniel Pearl and an elderly wheel-chair bound Achille Lauro passenger is never called a war crime--the terrorists act with impunity. Only wars are protested; Terrorist atrocities and war crimes are laughed off, ignored, or worse, secretly sympathized and justified.
5. Get ready for more hypocrisy
Some Iraqis despite official apologies and even compensation ,and despite experts from the Arab media who claimed that