1. Brad Hutchings on May 7, 2004 06:57 PM writes...

Dana,

I think it would be appropriate to at the very least separate the incidents (alleged, photographed, or otherwise) into two groups.

Group 1 is beating, molestations, murder, torture, etc. These are things that we clearly cannot tolerate. I may have missed something, but I don't think we have anything more than accusations and a few deaths being investigated. Nobody is advocating or defending such behavior, implicitly or explicitly. Such behavior really has no possible positive side effect for us anyway.

Group 2 is the frat-boy sexual degradation variety. I think reasonable people can disagree on the appropriateness of this provided the context is discussed as well. The female soldier pointing to the naked Iraqi's crotch and laughing has a very clear propaganda value, even if nobody has claimed credit for it being used that way. It tells the small population of thugs in Iraq that we will humiliate you within your own cultural context that incidently, severely degrades women. We will do this by having a woman dressed unmodestly by your stupid, backwards standards laughing at your lack of manhood. We hope that this will shame you and your family so much that you will leave Iraq and live out the rest of your life in shame. Our high officials will walk the walk and talk the talk with investigations and apologies, but the deed is done, we made it public, and you thugs do not want to continue messing with us. We will make the consequences of that worse than death and worse than torture.

Now, that has a definitive conspiratorial ring to it. I'm not fond of conspiracies, but I do know that in all human negotiation, there is front channel (how we talk publicly) and there is the shin kicking that goes on back channel. So I think the above is a fairly plausible explanation. And there's another piece of the context to bring in: the especially deadly April for American troops. I think this would be a great issue to revisit on June 1. If May has been significantly less deadly for Americans, then whether this whole degradation thing was planned or not, it will be easy to argue that it was effective.

Dana, would you find such behavior, if the above scenario is more accurate than not, abhorant? Curious.

-Brad

2. Jeff Nichols on May 8, 2004 10:05 AM writes...

Unbelievable. I don't know Brad Hutchings, and maybe his comment is just playing devil's advocate, but...."Group 1 and Group 2"? You're missing the point entirely. It doesn't matter whether the abuse is a little or a lot.

When we take a POW, we're taking responsibility for a life. For a human life. We treat it with respect, or suffer the consequences as a person and as a nation. If America ever had the moral high ground in this war, we lost it for good in the last few weeks.

I'm with Dana. Evil is evil, and no amount of rationalization or classification matters.

3. Brad Hutchings on May 8, 2004 09:58 PM writes...

Well Jeff, you better get used to being totally outraged because official interrogation policy has allowed for things like sleep deprivation, exposing prisoners to hot and cold, making them strip naked, blindfolding them with bags over their heads, and (heaven forbid) even yelling at them. In a story linked by Drudge today, the Pentagon has decided to tighten up control of pre-interrogation by now requiring permission from higher in the chain of command for some of these tactics, without banning them outright.

So you can think I'm being silly or whatever, but you'd probably find it more in line with how things are done and even what the Geneva Convention allows. Aside, note that with terrorists who are not conscripted into a nation's official army, we label them differently than as POWs.

But you're right, we shouldn't do any of this kind of thing to any prisoners in any circumstance. We most certainly shouldn't humiliate these thugs. Perhaps we should call in the Hilton sisters to build them a nice hotel?

-Brad

4. Dana Blankenhorn on May 8, 2004 10:42 PM writes...

We Are All Wearing The Blue Dress Now

Whether Republicans like it or not, if George Bush is elected in the fall, the entire world will view the election as American approval of the torture and sexual humiliation of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison. The pictures are simply too graphic. The abuses are simply too horrible.

This election will thus no longer merely determine the Presidency. This election is now much larger than the office. The United State’s place in the family of nations is now on the ballot. The United States cannot simultaneously stand against depraved sexual torture and the wanton abuse of human rights, while electing the commander in chief upon whose watch these events occurred.
http://www.thedailybrew.com/

5. Jeff Nichols on May 11, 2004 09:42 AM writes...

"We most certainly shouldn't humiliate these thugs. Perhaps we should call in the Hilton sisters to build them a nice hotel?"

Great. That's a great example of the polarity that makes politics tough to have a conversation about. No, we don't need to put POWs in the Hilton, and no, we don't need to torture or humiliate them. Here's an idea: lock them up in a cell, feed them, and otherwise leave them alone. Loss of freedom and comradeship is pretty brutal, IMHO.

And they're not necessarily thugs. They're defending their country against an unwanted invader - us. We long ago stopped fighting against Saddam and his army - we're now fighting against the Iraqi people. What would we do if a superior military power decided that Bush had to be deposed, took out DC and then stuck around for a year or two? I think those of us who fought back would be labeled "insurgents" and end up dead or imprisoned.

That's why it's important to be *right*; to have and keep the moral high ground. Once you've lost that, you're just another conqueror. And that's not the America I thought I was voting for.