It was clear at the time, and now validated, that the "bad apple" story was b.s. The paper trail for abuse led straight back to the White House and Bush/Rummy/Gonzales. Again, without GOP Media Control, these guys would have been bounced out of office and likely into prison a year ago.
Posted by T2 at July 14, 2005 09:11 AMDarn it you found out the MO. How can we dishonest NeoCons get by if keep exposing our plans. Here now you have caught us red handed! We (along with neo-Nazi, Jews, Halliburton, and Mickey Mouse) devised a plan to bomb the WTC so we could invade Iraq and make men wear women’s underwear. I feel better getting that off my chest (so to speak). So often during those boring days of the Clinton Administration we in the military used to fantasies about gathering up a group of Arabs, stack them in a pyramid, pose them for pictures, and otherwise torture them. All this was devised to cover so Karl Rove could out a single low-level desk jockey at the CIA. I can see the Administration crumbling before my eyes! Keep it up I love you guys!
Posted by Cyber Sarge at July 14, 2005 09:38 AMIt was clear (except to those working in/for the corporate media ) long ago when it surfaced that this administration had assigned people to "legally justify" torture as an acceptable practice, that it was more than just few bad apples making this despicable action "quaint". Unless that is you're talking about the truly bad seeds that walk in the halls of the WH that wanted to justify the action in the first place.
Posted by emal at July 14, 2005 10:08 AMSearching for that bad apple?
Alfred McCoy, Cruel Science: CIA Torture and U.S. Foreign Policy [ scroll down ]
Posted by theologicus at July 14, 2005 10:35 AMThe sad thing is, even if this reaches a point where our fellow citizens on the right quit denying it, they'll just switch gears and say it was all justified and support it 100%.
I, like the majority of Americans, find it hard to feel any sympathy for those scumbags locked up in the Abu Ghraib/Gitmo prisons. Mistakes were made by our young military personnel. Considering their harsh punishment for use of dog leashes, justice has been done.
The Democrats will do themselves a huge service to quit aligning themselves with the likes of Amnesty International who attack our military while never mentioning what these so-called jihadists do to our people when captured. There is no comparison in brutality or treatment.
Lets quit alienating the American people by attacking our military and stick to attacking BushCo. If we absolutely HAVE to unfairly keep attacking the military, at least go after those ultimately responsible: Rummy and and his "Yes Men" like General Myers and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
All this left-wing bawling over the "detainees" at Gitmo is just what the Republicans want the American to see and hear, and we are playing right into their hands. Our young men and women are dying in an unnecessary war in Iraq and the Right screams patriotism, mom, God and apple pie. And what are the people on the left screaming back? Gitmo. You can bet that Karl Rove, Bush, DeLay, Cheney, Frist, etc., couldn't be happier, keeping the national focus on something like the non-story at Gitmo.
Posted by Hank at July 14, 2005 11:22 AMWell, the "few bad apples" defense might have been destroyed, but the few bad apples that have been scapegoated are serving time--and they are not the right goats either. The ones who are actually respobsible likely were transferred to another facility where they can continue their "job" unhindered. What do you think the chances are of anyone finding out about another Abu Ghraib now? D'you think they might have a "check your camera at the door" policy there? And select people who are not likely to be whisleblowers? GITMO is one thing, but they still want--and I am sure have--another similar unit on location, so they would not have to drag people half-way across the world to torture. Since they are defending the methods and claim it's not torture, since they've got rid of "bad apples" already, we can be sure that they've got a green light to keep doing it, but quietly.
Posted by buck turgidson at July 14, 2005 12:19 PMPlease, Hank. Go to Gitmo (or Gahena for that matter) and clean up the place. It's just possible you could find one of your left/right/middle compats there - who've had no lawyer, no trial, no charges - but Hell, they're guilty already anyway cause they're Islamists, right? What a git you are. OR is that git-mo, think-less? (;>
Posted by Donald Cormac at July 14, 2005 12:23 PMHank, you may well be right about the "scumbags". The problem is, by the military's own admission, we don't know who's a scumbag and who isn't. These guys are "suspected scumbags", and the reasons for the suspicion are often pretty thin. Even GITMO had its share of people who had little or no reason to have been transported there.
So if you want to keep "scumbags" locked up--fine. Do you also want them tortured? Or do you want to torture ALL of them until they admit that they are scumbags?
Posted by buck turgidson at July 14, 2005 12:30 PM"If you want to keep "scumbags" locked up--fine. Do you also want them tortured? Or do you want to torture ALL of them until they admit that they are scumbags?" This particular scumbag (noted in the report) wanted desperately to join his fellow Islamists on their journey into paradise by flying into the WTC. How about we announce that we are letting him go in New York, tell everybody the place/time, and let nature takes it course? The making people wear bra and dancing was simple abuse and nothing more. That crap about being afraid of menstrual blood and sexy undergarments is some liberal fantasy. The guards were just fucking with this guy BECAUSE he was the 20th hijacker. If these yahoos are so devote that naked breast make them squeal like girls, how come they spent their LAST night on earth visiting strip clubs in Florida? They probably don't enjoy a female being in control of them (especially and infidel) but I doubt they go to their cell weeping if one brushes up against them in the course of interrogation. FYI Buck we didn't intercept these guys on the way to the falaful stand, they were detained on the battlefield carrying weapons. Since they are technically classified "Unlawful Combatants" every day they breath is on borrowed time. We should have dispatched them at the time of capture but I guess we are getting soft.
Posted by Cyber Sarge at July 14, 2005 03:04 PMWell, Donald, I guess I must be thinkless or as you put it, a "Git". I don't need to go to Gitmo, I have already been there. Serving my country. Have you? Also, the tired old prison pics of the chainlink cages are several years old. We have a brand new prison there that rivals any we have for our own countrymen here in the states. Why doesn't Amnesty Intl and the critics of our treatment of the "alleged scumbags" mention that?
Can you name any prison in the US that provides special meals (with no pork), books like the Koran that can't be touched during cell searches, allows inmate beards, turbans, special prayer rugs, and is open to inspections by the ACLU, Amnesty Intl, etc.? I wonder how much better those poor, mistreated prisoners would have it at, say, Pelican Bay?
Still, the purpose of my log entry above was not to defend the practices of Rummy, BushCo, or how the uniform code of military justice deals with prisoners. I am liberal to moderate in my views and understand that a small fraction of those held may not be guilty and are, therefore, not "scumbags". But, as pointed out, I'm only a think-less retired military grunt who would suggest that the liberals stop trying to alienate a large part of their political base by attacking those of us who busted our asses protecting theirs. That said, I will say it again. The majority of Americans do not like Amnesty Intl, the ACLU, and such groups attacking the young troops at Gitmo. That is not to say they want them mistreated, tortured, or abused. The ones who are not American citizens are not entitled to lawyers, etc. Nor do they fall under the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. Some of them are murderers, or suspected jihadist killers and get no sympathy from most of us here in America.
So don't shoot the messenger. I just think the left needs to rally around the troops and wave the flag along with the right. The Repubs already has painted themselves as the party of God, are we going to let them be the only ones who believe in patriotism while we paint ourselves as the party of the anti-military? Case in Point: Had we not alienated the NRA in 2000, and just one third of them would have voted for Gore, GWB would be cutting brush back on his hobby-ranch in Texas right now.
Posted by Hank at July 14, 2005 03:11 PM
Hank, I understand your point. Although my post may not reflect it, I in no way think that the troops themselves are the problem, but rather their senior military and civilian leaders.
The truth is that Abu Ghraib was never going to be a winning issue for the Democrats for the simple reason that the Bush White House framed the issue from Day One as a problem with the troops and an isolated number of them at that, and not of their leaders. Rove did this for two good reasons: first, he needed to deflect attention away from those who were responsible for the policies; and second, because Rove wanted opponents to be forced to go after the one part of our society that is held in the highest regard.
Posted by Steve Soto at July 14, 2005 03:50 PMHanky: I also served *our* country in the military, but that was thirty-odd years ago. And I only did it cause I needed the job. That's what most of the soldiers are there for - not some high falutin ideal of fighting for a democracy there (so that we don't have to have one here). Why in hell should I go to a foreign country to kill people who have done nothing to me or my country. That makes absolutely no sense. So, yes you are a git, with yet much ullage in your jarhead. That would explain the vapidity of your suggestion that we all, right and left, wave the flag and support a war based on lies. I wouldn't care if my own dear mother went to fight such a war, I couldn't support her - it's not "democracy" or "WMD" or "regime change" that our military is fighting for. It's for Halliturban (that's why they continue to get no-bid contracts like the one to build the gleaming prison on the hill you take such pride in "visiting"). The prisoners may as well be fed dog food (porkless though it may be). I wonder, do you speak even one word of Arabic so that you might understand what those "scumbags" were being tortured into confessing to? Hmmmmm? Or have you just taken the dreck you were given by your superiors as Gospel. So yes, when the messenger brings 24/7 bad news at the end of an assault rifle, he/she should be killed like any other deranged putz. (:>
Posted by Donald Cormac at July 14, 2005 04:15 PMDonald, there is not a lot difference in my views and yours. Jarhead, yes. And also US Army. And I did not "visit" Gitmo but was part of the 5th MEB. The new prison I spoke of is public record. I do not believe that real torture in our understanding of the word,is being used at that site. But that's only my opinion. Afganhistan, maybe.
And no I do not support the Iraq War. Never did. After what Vietnam did to this country, I thought we learned a lesson about "nation building." But my point is not about any of this. Only that while we preoccupy ourselves with Gitmo, Bush and Company are laying low, waiting for the scandal on Rove to go away, as it did with Delay, Haliburton, Cheney's secret energy deals, etc.
We should be concentrating our efforts on the stuff that REALLY makes the American center side with us and quit carping on crap they could care less about.
Posted by Hank at July 14, 2005 04:58 PMHank: Agreed. Peace, my brutha. (;>
Posted by Donald Cormac at July 14, 2005 05:02 PMDonald, the only thing I really needed to say is read Steve Soto's post above. He says it all for me. I'm just not very articulate. Later.
Posted by Hank at July 14, 2005 05:25 PMTwo wrongs have never made a right in my book.
Posted by Judith at July 14, 2005 05:30 PM"who attack our military while never mentioning what these so-called jihadists do to our people when captured. There is no comparison in brutality or treatment."
That's what I meant by the above post.
Posted by Judith at July 14, 2005 05:33 PMit was so clear from the Senate hearings on Abu Ghraib that Miller was the key overseer of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld reign of torture that I've been perplexed ever since as to why this man has not been thrown in the brig - if not by the military then at least through reports issued by Senate Democrats.
Posted by Marie at July 15, 2005 11:17 AM