Perhaps this explains why that isn't happening:
When the story on Abu Ghraib broke, the coverage and hyperbole regarding the supposed "atrocities" at the notorious prison blew the abuses far out of proportion. As many remarked at the time, no one died from wearing panties on their heads, and the pathetic perpetrators of the abuses found themselves tried, convicted, and sentenced to justifiable prison terms. Abu Ghraib was an embarrassment arising from a lack of unit discipline.
Haditha, on the other hand, turns out to be a real atrocity, the kind of shameful event that will justifiably haunt the US for years.
Captain's Quarters (right-wing) blog
On Thursday nite, President Bush, in a response to a reporter's question, said this:
Q Mr. President, you spoke about missteps and mistakes in Iraq. Could I ask both of you which missteps and mistakes of your own you most regret?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Sounds like kind of a familiar refrain here -- saying "bring it on," kind of tough talk, you know, that sent the wrong signal to people. I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner -- you know, "wanted dead or alive," that kind of talk. I think in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted, and so I learned from that. And I think the biggest mistake that's happened so far, at least from our country's involvement in Iraq is Abu Ghraib. We've been paying for that for a long period of time. And it's -- unlike Iraq, however, under Saddam, the people who committed those acts were brought to justice. They've been given a fair trial and tried and convicted.
The torture at Abu Ghraib was a 'mistake'? Why? Because America is still 'paying for that'? And the best he can do is to say that those involved were 'brought to justice'? People who commited war crimes who received sentences ranging from discharges from the military to Graner's 10 years? For torturing people? That's 'justice'?
But, as the Captain will tell you, 'no one died from wearing panties on their heads' therefore they weren't 'real' atrocities.
What exactly is an atrocity?
How about this list from the Taguba Report?
6.(S) I find that the intentional abuse of detainees by military police personnel included the following acts:
a.(S) Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;
b.(S) Videotaping and photographing naked male and
female detainees;
c.(S) Forcibly arranging detainees in various
sexually explicit positions for photographing;
d.(S) Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;
e.(S) Forcing naked male detainees to wear women's
underwear;
f.(S) Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;
g.(S) Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and
then jumping on them;
h.(S) Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box,
with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;
i.(S) Writing "I am a Rapest" (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;
j.(S) Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked
detainee's neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture;
k.(S) A male MP guard having sex with a female
detainee;
l.(S) Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;
m.(S) Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.
8. (U) In addition, several detainees also described the following acts of abuse, which under the circumstances, I find credible based on the clarity of their statements and supporting evidence provided by other witnesses (ANNEX 26):
a.(U) Breaking chemical lights and pouring the
phosphoric liquid on detainees;
b.(U) Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol;
c.(U) Pouring cold water on naked detainees;
d.(U) Beating detainees with a broom handle and a
chair;
e.(U) Threatening male detainees with rape;
f.(U) Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell;
g.(U) Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.
h.(U) Using military working dogs to frighten and
intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.
Amnesty International had this to say:
There is a tendency, not least amongst the US military, to euphemize aspects of war and violence. Killed and maimed civilians become "collateral damage"; torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment become "stress and duress" techniques; and "disappeared" prisoners become "ghost detainees". Euphemizing human rights violations threatens to promote tolerance of them. In similar vein, there has been a noticeable reluctance among senior members of the US administration to call what happened in Abu Ghraib torture, preferring the term "abuse". Members of an administration that has discussed how to push the boundaries of acceptable interrogation techniques and of how agents could avoid criminal liability for torture might display a particular reticence to call torture by its name.
And, for those struggling with the severity of the atrocities commited at Abu Ghriab, there is this:
Harmon is shown smiling over the corpse of prisoner Manadel al-Jamadi after a terrible torture and brutality that should be fully exposed to our people for what it really tells about this administration.
...
According to this article the torture is now called "Palestinian Hanging," (hanging one by the wrists tied behind them). In WWII it was called BAUM, and was used in the concentration camps as a normal punishment, especially of Jews and Russians. The intent was to slowly torture and kill.
My men and I forced our way into Dachau 3-B in Muhldorf, where we cut down 20 to 30 prisoners hanging this way. It was not a pretty sight. Even to the hardened combat men, it was never to be forgotten. After WWII, I had assumed that this kind of brutality was forgotten as "not acceptable," especially by Americans. Unfortunately, some of this young generation have crossed below the line of human decency, led by CIA officers and politicians such as the Rumsfeld leadership who teach, encourage and permit such terrible behavior.
In WWII we Americans carried the American flag with pride wherever we went. People cheered us as we arrived for what we represented and we earned that respect. As we pushed the enemy out of the towns and cites all over Europe, thousands of tiny American flags came out of hiding among the occupied peoples as they cheered us. Unfortunately, in this generation, too many of our young have not been taught that pride, honor and respect for themselves and the nation. Our leadership today believes in waving many American flags behind their speeches and on their lapels. It was this way in Germany in the '30s only they waved the Nazi flag (same psychology). Our people use the flag and yellow ribbons to show support for our troops in Iraq, but where has the true honor and pride in the American flag gone?
But how dare anyone compare American torture to that of the Nazis. Right?
Just what does it mean to be a patriotic American these days? Is that expressed by denying the seriousness of the actions perpetuated in their names by the soldiers who have supposedly gone to Iraq to 'protect their freedom' and who have, instead, chosen to display the most hideous side of human nature? Are those soldiers and the Bush administration to be defended for the torture they condone? Is that what true patriotism is?
Or, was Oscar Wilde right?
“Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.”
Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican, had this to say about what happened at Abu Ghraib:
"The American public needs to understand, we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience. We're talking about rape and murder and some very serious charges."
It seems that the some members of the American public still don't understand.
a·troc·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-trs-t)
n. pl. a·troc·i·ties
1.Appalling or atrocious condition, quality, or behavior; monstrousness.
2. An appalling or atrocious act, situation, or object, especially an act of unusual or illegal cruelty inflicted by an armed force on civilians or prisoners.
Is that clear now?
No comments:
Post a Comment