Return with me to Abu Ghraib. You remember it. You may not want to, but you do.
The Iraqi prison was the epicenter of an international scandal in 2004 when it was revealed that U.S. soldiers were mistreating detainees, forcing them to stand in stress positions, sexually humiliating them, menacing them with dogs, denying them clothes, dragging them on leashes, threatening them with electrocution.
All of it was captured in photos that shocked the world. One of the most memorable showed then-21-year-old Army private Lynndie England, cigarette poking from an idiotic grin, index fingers cocked like guns as she pointed to the genitals of a naked Iraqi man.
We stared at those images and asked how this could have happened, how American soldiers could have become so degraded and undisciplined, could have wandered so far afield from the moorings of simple, human decency. Many answers were proffered. Mob mentality. Dehumanizing conditions. Lack of oversight.
But as the years have passed, a truer answer has coalesced. Where did these young soldiers get the idea that the rules were suspended, that free rein was given, that they could do whatever they wanted to the men in their custody?
It came from the top.
The latest proof: a recently declassified 2003 memo from John Yoo, then a Justice Department lawyer. The memo, eventually rescinded by Justice, authorized torture as a means of interrogation, a finding that carried the force of law.
Much of the media coverage of the 81-page document has focused on the - and this word is unavoidably ironic - bloodless legalese in which Yoo contemplates the permissibility of putting a prisoner's eyes out, slitting his tongue, scalding him with water, dosing him with mind-altering drugs, disfiguring him with acid. But what is also appalling is Yoo's contention, repeatedly restated in the memo, that the president in time of war enjoys virtually unfettered authority over, is accountable to no one for, the treatment of prisoners.
Legal scholars have accused Yoo of sloppy reasoning. Eugene Fidell, who teaches military justice at Yale and American universities, told the International Herald Tribune the document was a monument to the "imperial presidency." Yoo disagrees. He calls the memo a "boilerplate" defense of presidential authority.
Your humble correspondent doesn't know from legal scholarship. He does know this: Seven years ago when the nation was attacked and Americans wanted to pitch in, wanted to help, wanted to sacrifice, our leaders told us to go shopping. Prop the economy up, they said. Don't worry about the war. Let us handle it. Go shopping.
And we did. Nor, scared as we were, eager for the illusion of security as we were, did we look too closely or examine too intently the things that were being done in our names. We became, many of us, expert at ignoring the screams from behind the curtain, discounting the growing mountain of evidence that things were not as we had been told, brushing off nagging questions about what we have become and how that does not square with what we are supposed to be.
We shopped, and did not fret overmuch about the price of our moral laxity.
Maybe that's because the price is paid in tiny increments of our national honor yet somehow, never by those who most deserve to foot the bill. So that, seven years later, George W. Bush is still president of the United States, Donald Rumsfeld is working on his memoirs, John Yoo is a law professor at UC Berkeley.
But Lynndie England is a single mother, on parole and looking for work, living in a trailer with her folks.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
According to AP, that's the casehttp://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/11/8213/
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
You'd never believe anything from any source that told you something other than what you want to hear, balik.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
I suppose next you'll want to know what the definition of "is" is, Kevin.I listened to the link. It's one of the stupidest, most desperate reaches for something to complain about I've ever heard. O'Donnell was clearly referring to the actions of the US in Iraq. And yes, BushCo misused and abused US military forces for the purpose of committing acts of terrorism. So whether the question is "Who is," or "Who are" the terrorists, the obvious answer is BushCo.Go break a leg, Kevin. Or maybe just bash your head against a wall. That appears to be the only way some sense might get knocked into it.
erod0723 (anonymous) says…
balikbalik,How in the hell is waterboarding not torture? How is making someone believe they are being murdered (and sometimes actuall dying) not torture? EVERY person must be afforded the same basic human rights, irregardless of nationality, religion, or race. We must not allow ourselves to become vile and evil people (for information that is not even valid). How can you possiby justify the illegal kangaroos courts we have set up to convict "terrorists". Most of the "terrorists" we have in custody were rounded up for no reason or brought in by bounty hunters eager for money. WE caused radical islam in the Middle East by continually interfering in their affairs. We had NO right to invade Iraq. Stupid freeper.
dorothyhr (Dorothy Hoyt-Reed) says…
You rightists loonies will believe anything Bush/Cheney tells you. It was WMD's. Yes, my lords. No it's because they helped destroy the WTC. Yes, my lord. Torture is good. Yes, my lord. There is peace in Iraq. Yes, my lord. Pollution is good for life. Yes, my lord. Oil is god. Yes, my lord. War is peace. Yes, my lord. High oil prices are good for the economy. Yes, my lord. Let me tap your phones. Yes, my lord. Let's put cameras in all houses for your safety. Yes my lord.Thank god their time is almost up. Less than a year left. Let's hope the next president will restore the US.
dorothyhr (Dorothy Hoyt-Reed) says…
balikbalik,I've never kept my politics a secret from the people I work for, as I don't keep my identity a secret on this forum. I'm just mirroring the behavior of those who are always so critical on this forum. They accuse people critical of this administration as being brain washed and leftest loonies, but they seem to follow along blindly with all the waffling that has gone on for the last 8 years. Bush is a politician so lying is a given, but he has gone from being critical of nation building to being a nation builder (and he's not very good at it). He wants us to pay more and more for a war, or rather our children will pay for it, because he doesn't have the guts to say we have to raise taxes to pay for it. He claims to be a conservative, but conservatives have always been fiscally responsible. Also if he believes torture is ok, because the enemy does it, how is he different than the enemy? If we can't conduct ourselves honorably, and not lower ourselves to the level of our enemies, then we are doomed.
dorothyhr (Dorothy Hoyt-Reed) says…
ps balikbalikI'm also one of those people who never take meds if there is an alternative. My doctor even has to prove to me that an infection is bacterial before I take an antibiotic. I'm just rightfully angry about those posters who can't just argue for or against something without name calling, so I decided to give them a taste of their own medicine. I guess I'm lowering myself to their level, so I think I will now go take a shower. At least I've never tortured someone.