Abu Ghraib Torturer Was Just Playing
Hey, it was nothing, we was just joshing. Like in college, you know.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and note a distinction between abuse of Iraqi citizens by American soldiers and abuse of American soldiers by Iraqi citizens. It's a subtle thing, but it might make a difference in how you interpret these things. The distinction is this: these events took place in Iraq. In one case, the citizens were resisting a brutal invading force, in the other, the invading force was humiliating citizens in captivity. It might not be an important distinction, but it sheds a somewhat different light on the interpretation of events, at least for me.
And, uh, just to clear this up, I went to college, in fact I graduated from several, and I don't remember being dragged around on a leash while German shepherds snapped at me, I don't remember students lying dead in puddles of blood ... Maybe in the Sociology Department, I wouldn't know, but not in Psych.
Five years after the infamous Abu Ghraib torture photos came to light, Lynndie England says the government's "softening up tactics" are acceptable ways to get information from prisoners.
In an interview with the BBC, England defends herself and fellow soldiers who posed Iraqi prisoners in degrading positions for photographs in 2004.
"Compared to what they do to us, that's like nothing," England says in the BBC video, referring to instances where Americans were decapitated, burned, dragged through the streets or hung from a bridge by insurgents. She likens the physical degradation that appears in the Abu Ghraib photos to the kinds of hazing that go on in American colleges and boot camps. Abu Ghraib Torture Was "Like Nothing"
I'm going to go out on a limb here and note a distinction between abuse of Iraqi citizens by American soldiers and abuse of American soldiers by Iraqi citizens. It's a subtle thing, but it might make a difference in how you interpret these things. The distinction is this: these events took place in Iraq. In one case, the citizens were resisting a brutal invading force, in the other, the invading force was humiliating citizens in captivity. It might not be an important distinction, but it sheds a somewhat different light on the interpretation of events, at least for me.
And, uh, just to clear this up, I went to college, in fact I graduated from several, and I don't remember being dragged around on a leash while German shepherds snapped at me, I don't remember students lying dead in puddles of blood ... Maybe in the Sociology Department, I wouldn't know, but not in Psych.
"Similar humiliation tactics and physical exertion, you know, everybody goes through that stuff in boot camp in the military," she says.
England, whose biography was published in May, has popped up in the media several times in recent months. In June, she admitted to the Associated Press that she made some bad decisions, but says she was only following orders.
"We were just pawns," she told AP. "People were just playing us."
In April, the government released Bush administration documents sanctioning "enhanced interrogation techniques," causing some to sympathize with England's claim. But Christopher Graveline, who prosecuted England, says the Iraqis in the Abu Ghraib photos were common criminals, not terrorists.
"The idea that she and her colleagues were working somehow for military intelligence is not supported by fact," he says.
Today, England spends most of her days in seclusion, rarely leaving her West Virginia house except for short trips to the grocery store. She suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, depression and anxiety and worries most about being a good mother to her 4-year-old son Carter, whose father, Charles Graner, took the Abu Ghraib photos.
posted by JimK at 8:53 AM
9 Comments:
I think England took the fall for the people who really instituted these procedures. She was a patsy. The real perpetrators, those who encouraged this, are still at large, writing articles for the Wall Street Journal and the National Review.
"And, uh, just to clear this up, I went to college, in fact I graduated from several, and I don't remember being dragged around on a leash while German shepherds snapped at me"
You don't remember that, Jim?
Because the Blade has come college pictures of you that say otherwise.
(just kidding)
Robert may be partly right but these two sound like trailer trash that spends too much time looking at internet porn.
While officials may have encouraged harsh treatment, if necessary, and looked the other way at some tactics, it's a bit much to believe that these two were required to do this stuff.
They obviously had a choice and bear responsibility for their own actions and sick minds.
Is that too judgmental?
It brings up the question of how much of a justification is "I was simply following orders," or "I thought that was what my boss wanted me to do."
The chain of command is very good at tacitly indicating what they want done, but falling back on the letter of documentation and explicit wording when the doves come home to roost.
She is most certainly culpable, but she's also the fall guy.
huh, I thought hazing was illegal?
And the fact that horrible things happen doesn't mean they're okay.
one could easily say "oh it's no different than a sororiety girl who gets raped after drinking too much, happens all the time, no big deal."
Uh, it is a big deal, and the fact that England doesn't get it, makes her MORE of a monster.
Jim writes,
I'm going to go out on a limb here and note a distinction between abuse of Iraqi citizens by American soldiers and abuse of American soldiers by Iraqi citizens. It's a subtle thing, but it might make a difference in how you interpret these things. The distinction is this: these events took place in Iraq. In one case, the citizens were resisting a brutal invading force, in the other, the invading force was humiliating citizens in captivity. It might not be an important distinction, but it sheds a somewhat different light on the interpretation of events, at least for me.
There is a distinction here though I doubt it is the one that Jim, looking through some heavily tinted ideological glasses, proposes.
The distinction is this: those working at Abu Ghraib had a professional code to uphold and they failed to fulfill this obligation. When this failure occured they became the moral equals of the worst elements of native barbarism in Iraq.
It would appear that Lynndie England learned nothing while in military prison, and has emerged a person in pretty much the same depraved state as when she committed those heinous acts. Now that is a shame and a waste...
"The distinction is this: those working at Abu Ghraib had a professional code to uphold and they failed to fulfill this obligation. When this failure occured they became the moral equals of the worst elements of native barbarism in Iraq."
I completely agree, just because the other side does something horrible, does NOT GIVE US LICENSE to do the same, or similar, or to even head down the same road as them.
The distinction between the "good" guys and the bad guys is that the good guys don't do this bullshit. We're supposed to be better than this. If we can't be, then we have no reason to complain or critique other countries.
How can we possibly look to the world and say "no really, we're the only ones who can be trusted to have nukes" when we do shit like this?
If America cannot do right, without doing evil, then there's a serious question as to what it truly is, what it truly stands for, and if it's worthy of survival.
All civilized countries keep a close watch on the behavior of their armies. Our country in the 8 years previous became less civilized.
Jason D writes,
I completely agree, just because the other side does something horrible, does NOT GIVE US LICENSE to do the same, or similar, or to even head down the same road as them.
The distinction between the "good" guys and the bad guys is that the good guys don't do this bullshit. We're supposed to be better than this. If we can't be, then we have no reason to complain or critique other countries.
Yes...exactly...however this discussion brings to mind another distinction: who initially brought this information to light? And the answer to that question would be the US military. Now it can be said they had no other choice but to report this, since it would be discovered sooner or later by the media. And yet another distinction is that instead of praising and rewarding this barbarism by a few members of the US military, those principally responsible for wrongdoing were punished (in stark contrast to the arab/islamist tendency to praise murder/suicide bombers, esp. in Israel).
Lynndie and her cohorts protestations notwithstanding, they ALONE ultimately made the choice to do what they did. Obviously in retrospect now it is clear that they lacked adequate supervision and that this deficiency contributed to and enabled them to do what they did.
How can we possibly look to the world and say "no really, we're the only ones who can be trusted to have nukes" when we do shit like this?
First off, the process for controlling nuclear weapons is more complex and well established than the system in place at Abu Ghraib.
The other line in this argument is really how can we be looked at as some bright, shining light on the hill to the world....
This argument has a certain weight to it, but also has concrete limitations, especially with regards to the arab/islamist on the street in the Middle East and Asia (here I am thinking of Afghanistan). The arab/islamist chant is that the US is hypocritical, but that is an all too easy thing to chant when they observe no standard of human rights because they do not believe in such Western nonsense.
If America cannot do right, without doing evil, then there's a serious question as to what it truly is, what it truly stands for, and if it's worthy of survival.
Jason, you bring up a very good point, though I cannot help that you miss almost half of this issue. What you seem to demand is a country like the US to ALWAYS do good and NEVER commit evil. Simply put, this is not possible - it is to make the better the enemy of the best. The US has failed to match practice with principle; most infamously in the case of slavery (of more than the out of Africa variety; here I am thinking of Chinese laborers brought to this country to build the railroad system...among many things) and the treatment of Native Americans. Still, "in Order to form a more perfect Union" the mechanism has been put in place that has the "last, best chance of Earth" at more closely approximating justice.
Is this country, indeed the West, worthy of survival? That is a good question...we know what we will live for - really now the question is, what are we willing to die for? Those partial to the Islamist point-of-view are eager to die for what they believe in. What do we believe in?
"Jason, you bring up a very good point, though I cannot help that you miss almost half of this issue."
I didn't miss it, I actually focused in on it very tightly.
England and others want a pass, a get out a jail free card, amnesty, understanding (something their victims didn't get, by the way) and why? Because we're the "good" guys.
But how can we profess to be the good guys when we permit such complete evil to happen? The fact that it was punished is noteworthy, but the point is that it shouldn't have happened in the first place.
I saw people criticizing the media for talking about this story because it "made our soldiers look bad". NO, the idiots at Abu Ghraib made our soldiers look bad, the fact that the media didn't cover it up or ignore it means they were actually doing their job for once.
"What you seem to demand is a country like the US to ALWAYS do good and NEVER commit evil."
Oh, I outright demanded it. There's too much myopia in our country. Too many people screaming "we're the best country in the world" and when someone says "really, remember Abu Ghraib?" their answer is "SHUT UP, We're the best country in the world!" They want to ignore our failings and pretend they don't count against the claim of being "the best". We can't have it both ways, either we have to stop being such arrogant pricks about our country -- and be realistic, or we have to stop boasting about how fantastic our country is. We're not fooling anyone but ourselves.
I love my family very much, but I'm not trying to tell anyone it's the best family in the world. It's the best family for me, though. I feel similarly about my country. But too many people have this "my country, right or wrong." mentality, and it's just plain sick and dangerous. We have founding principles that outweigh that. Last I checked, this country wasn't founded by Machiavelli.
We can't claim to be the best when Abu Ghraib's and other stupid crap still happen, and we certainly can't become the best unless we're willing to take an honest, unflinching look at what we're doing and find ways to be better.
Someone who sweeps their porch, ignoring the fact that the rest of the house is a disgustingly filthy mess cannot scream "I have the cleanest house on this block!" without his neighbors questioning his sanity. My nuclear weapon comment is appropriate. Imagine my porch screaming weirdo saying "I have the cleanest house on the block!" to his disbelieving neighbors, who then wonder "so which moron let this guy have a gun?!"
Simply put, this is not possible - it is to make the better the enemy of the best.
That is, quite simply, a cop out. So that we can gleefully sweep Abu Ghraib under the carpet, pat ourselves on the back, and continue to call ourselves the best. I expect way better of this country, because I know we can do it.
Post a Comment
<< Home