<< JOHN KERRY, TED KENNEDY, MAINSTREAM MEDIA, O'ROURKE ~ MAIN ~ EUROPE: LIKE CIVILISATION, EXCEPT WITH MIRROR BALLS >>
HELLISH INHUMANITY
Abu Ghraib dominatrix Lynndie England faces a court martial in May on various leashing, pointing, and human pyramiding charges. “Serious violations of international humanitarian law occurred at Abu Ghraib,” notes University of Toronto academic Wesley Wark, and few disagree.
Although Wark also complains of the prison’s “hellish precincts” and “man’s inhumanity to man”. Overstatement of Abu Ghraib’s horrors under American rule tends to obscure the prison’s previous role, before the place became a Leashes ‘R’ Us. It remains puzzling that those demanding action over torture of Iraqis inside Abu Ghraib weren’t earlier demanding action – ie, war – against those who were murdering Iraqis at the very same prison. A reader’s son was stationed at Abu Ghraib a year ago, and writes:
The Army’s building every conceivable structure to make the place more secure and more livable. One big problem, though, is everywhere they dig they keep finding bodies. This place was a real Dachau, from what the locals say--you came here, you didn’t leave. We visited the old death row about a week ago. It’s a huge room, with a raised concrete platform with two trapdoors under two huge steel half-rings bolted to the ceiling, with a cleat on the wall behind to wrap the rope around. It’s painted over now, but on the wall opposite the traps (about fifty, sixty feet away) was a huge picture of Saddam painted on the wall, so the last thing you’d see before your neck stretched was his grinning mug. The only place in this place where grass grows is the area right behind the death-row cellblock. Wonder why.
Interesting news about that picture; Saddam has a picture in his cell, too:
On the opposite wall of Saddam’s cell hangs a portrait. Saddam Hussein now spends his day looking at a picture of President Bush.
It’s just one more hideous example of man’s inhumanity to man, I guess. Like medical examinations.
Hey, none of those bodies had trash bags on their head, so how bad can it really be? [/irony]
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 03 12 at 01:13 PM • permalinkThe picture of President Bush was his choice. He could have gotten Britney Spears.
Posted by Mystery Meat on 2005 03 12 at 05:37 PM • permalinkThe US military has, in general, behaved in a professional, dignified and humane manner in Iraq. The officers, in general, did not want this war. The problems with A-G were associated with policy perversions coming from the Pentagon & Attorney General.
Saddam Hussein was a pretty hard case, and most Iraqis are glad that he is gone. Iraq is a country where the tough get to the top. Its not clear how many of the Iraqi political class shares his taste for Stalinist political solutions: ie “you have a man who gives you a problem, no man - no problem”.Jack, you don’t seem to know jack about Abu Ghraib and Lynndie England. Her stunts--and those associated with her--had absolutely zero to do with interrogating sources of intelligence. The victims of their stunts were all common criminals with no intelligence value whatsoever--multiple investigations pointed these facts out, including the recently completed report by Vice Admiral Church. You might also try the earlier report chaired by James Schlesinger.
To suggest the idea that an Army Spec. has a clue or a care about “policy perversions” in Washington is to be ignorant of Army life. The idiots performing those Frat House-style hazings on the Abu Ghraib inmates didn’t even know basic Army protocol, and yet you want us to believe that they were privy to some inside-baseball type goings-on in Washington.
Continually repeating falsehoods doesn’t turn them into facts.
But I’ll leave on a positive note. Yes, Saddam Hussein, as a murderous thug and despotic tyrant, was a case of the tough getting to the top.
It remains puzzling that those demanding action over torture of Iraqis inside Abu Ghraib weren’t earlier demanding action – ie, war – against those who were murdering Iraqis at the very same prison.
This is known as Latte-Faire foreign policy.
You only ask for intervention after everyone has been murdered or forcibly deported, or the country has been reduced to a sordid parody of the nation state.
And then only if the regime is so on the nose that it is uncomfortable to admit it is within your particular world-faction.
Are we going to see any proper intervention in Zimbabwe, Cuba, North Korea, Sudan, Syria, Iran, Chechnya, Congo, Uganda, or other states which should be put back together and administered in a way that benfits rather than punishes their populace?
Intervention in Iraq should have come as part of Gulf War One. It still amazes me that intervention in Iraq had to proceed without UN explicit approval.
But having in effect punished the US for wanting to do it, then going ahead, does the UN now expect it to jump right in and offer the critical support for any of these other interventions? Is the UN going to find the gumption or the resources to do anything in Zimbabwe or Darfur without US support?
It was only a tactical error on the Soviet’s part that saw the UN in Korea in 1950-53. They missed the vote. We have been living with the failure to complete that mission for the last 50 years, and it has gone from bad to worse.
If (against all liklihood)China went in and sorted it out militarily, killing the people who inflicted such misery for so many years, would they be criticised as much as the US has been for pissant, phony “tortures”?
If we want to make the world a better place, there is much to be done.
But if what these sideliners really want is to play politics and just use every situation to play against the US and its allies, not much will get done.Yeah, Wark has a point about “Man’s inhumanity to Man”. The sad thing is, he misses the irony that in ignoring the plight of the Iraqis murdered in Abu Gharib, he (and other like minded fools) are equally inhumane.
PS to Jack: Forbes said it all. I just wanted you to know that.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 03 13 at 02:03 AM • permalinkWhatever misconduct Lynndie and Co are guilty of, there’s one charge that hasn’t been laid against them - beheading hostages on camera while under the protection of a ski mask.
I know you all figured this out yourselves some time back. I just wanted to be the first to put it up here.Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2005 03 13 at 02:09 AM • permalinkJack Strocchi, in general, has behaved in a unprofessional, ridiculous and asinine manner in discussions regarding Iraq. Jack, in general, did not want this war before he did want this war. The problems with Jack’s posts are associated with the logical perversions that result when he pulls a conclusion out of his ass and cites any evidence he can to back it up, no matter if it is false or scarcely related to the subject at hand.
Jack is a pretty hard case, and most Iraqis wouldn’t spit in his mouth if he was dying of thirst should they hear the way he nonchalantly waxes over the old tyrant in his never-ending quest to imply that they were not worth the effort. The Buchananite anti-war right is a place where the dishonest and the loud get to the top. It’s not clear how many of the fringe-right political class shares his taste for Strocchist political discussion: ie “you make shit up and shout down anyone who talks backâ€?
Jack: “The problems with A-G were associated with policy perversions coming from the Pentagon & Attorney General.”
But you’re missing one teensy-weensy but ever so significant detail here: It doesn’t matter whose idea it was. The US Military are under an obligation to disobey illegal orders. The My Lai trial settled that once and for all.The “Defend the Constitution...” part of the oath comes before the “obey the orders...” part on purpose: It has priority.
If an officer orders someone to do something that is illegal, the correct response is, “No, Sir… court martial me. We’ll let the Judge Advocate decide if that’s legal.”
So, even if this stupid conspiracy theory that it came from the Attorney General’s office (where did that idea come from???)were true, it still wouldn’t fly. Even if it came as an order from above, it should not have been obeyed. If the grunts themselves didn’t know that, the officer in charge of them certainly would. Therefore, the people who did it are held accountable.
And… sorry, but this was strictly frat-prank level stuff. The only thing hurt was their little feelings.
Posted by mamapajamas on 2005 03 13 at 03:20 AM • permalinkWhat convinced me that A-G was just a sideshow of bad soldiers doing bad things was an interview in the WashPost with one of the victims. The guy was mugger/armed robber type and he was dishing out how the humiliation of the pictures had destroyed him.
Then the kicker at the end when the interviewer asked what compensation would make up for this humiliation?
Answer: Me and my family should be allowed to immigrate to America. I can’t live in my neighborhood with those pictures in the news everyday.
So how many millions will get in naked pyramid for a resident visa in Lynndie’s and BushHitler’s America?
Jack:
I don’t care how many times the enemies of Rumsfeld and Ashcroft try to turn the events that took place at Abu Ghraib into some conspiracy, it will not wash. It may be true that they did not come right out and say you could not put panties on a man’s head that does not mean they said you could.
The kind of questions that the Attorney General and the SoD asked about interrogation techniques and the legal standing of enemy combatants and terrorists were questions that had to be asked. They are not evidence of wrong doing.
If the military had been behind this those pictures would not have been out there and some silly girl would not have been partying with her boyfriend on the cell block that night and we would not be discussing this now.
But I do remember when the coalition found the people undergound that had been left there to die. They were eating scabs off their sores to stay alive.
It seems they were not worth bothering with.
That was Abu Ghraib.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
The Torture Papers, 1,249 pages detailing man’s inhumanity to man and the emptying out of cherished provisions of international law, is a block of granite on the path of any forgetfulness.
As Mallarme said of Edgar Allan Poe, ``a strange voice’’ ``a still block of stone fallen down here onto earth from out of an unknown disaster.’’ (This is called intertextuality.) It’s thought to come from the cliche about throwing a rock in somebody’s garden.
Have to break out The Pit and the Human Pyramid