There's something very typically Western about the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, (please nobody call it digicamgate). This is us, all of it. This is what we are as a culture: Occasionally sadistic, occasionally heroic, full of ass-covering politicians, short-sighted media, partisan pundits, high principles and cynicism. We've seen all of this in this scandal. The only place it could all play out this way, for good or bad, is here, in our enlightened, well-meaning, strong, shallow, weak, hypocritical and cruel culture. Us, every single piece of it, from the actions themselves to reactions and media coverage.

My own reaction is that yes, this is "petty" in the sense that the things the US has done right for Iraq far outweigh this and other abuses and mistakes they have done. But it's the kind of pettiness we're all about. There are really just two basic attitudes to power abuse open to us. One is that power abuse is bad and should be prevented, but it's also unavoidable, and not that important in the larger picture, so let's not make such a fuss about it. Let's keep things in perspective. That's the attitude abuse thrives under - we know that from experience. The other is that power abuse should be treated as if it was just about the worst thing in the world, that it must be condemned publicly and punished severely. Both approaches are faulty, but I actually prefer overreaction to perspective. Play it up, big, and hold them accountable all the way to the top. Imagine this happening in another context, without all the investment us warmongers have made in the reputation of the US armed forces. Imagine power abuse by a bureaucrat, or a journalist, like the case I wrote about recently. Was that a scandal, or just the kind of thing that happens when journalists care deeply about something, and which is far outweighed by the (let's assume for now) overall high quality of NRK reporters? The second option has more perspective, but it won't get us much closer to solving the problem.

Power abuse should always be treated as a scandal, even when in the larger picture it may not deserve it, because that's the solution our society has come up with for power abuse: Name, shame, condemn and punish. All the way to the top.

This means that it might be necessary for Donald Rumsfeld to go. Not because he is personally responsible. The attempt to use White House approval of psychological torture to imply that this sadism was ordered from the top is deceptive - whatever you think of psychological torture for investigative purposes, this wasn't it. But Rumsfeld is responsible the way all top officials are for what is being done in the name of their department. To kick him out is the appropriate symbolic response to power abuse on this scale. It would not "send a signal" to Iraqi rebels or to al-Qaeda, who'll fight anyway. European neo-pacifists won't love Bush the more for it. The effect would be internal and long-term, by giving soldiers and officials one less excuse for performing or not doing enough to prevent similar abuses in the future.

Petty, but a form of pettiness we should embrace. Not a pettiness of truth, exaggerating small truths in the name of a higher Truth, (as for instance environmentalists have gotten used to), but a pettiness of focus. Power abuse is the one big internal threat our societies have been designed to counter, but will always be vulnerable to. So we must strike down hard on it, always. Yes, it is truthful to say that these things happen in war, that few but Western officials would care to prevent them, that Iraq is better off with American abuse than Baath Party abuse. Perfectly true. And yet this is and should be a big scandal.

The same applies, btw, to the UN and UNSCAM, a much worse form of power abuse, also by an agency that follows Western ideals. But the lesson here is not "UN supporters are hypocritical because they only care about American abuse", or "isn't it just typical that people call for Rumsfeld's head but say nothing about Kofi Annan", which though true and full of perspective is irrelevant to how Abu Ghraib is dealt with. You can either follow the principles of corrupt UN bureaucrats or something higher, and that something higher requires top level punishment. Because in the end, Rumsfeld is just a politician, and because power abuse should be treated as if it was the worst thing in the world.

Hi Bjorn...

Please allow me to explain something about the US military. I am a Vietnam Era veteran (never in Vietnam because women weren't allowed in combat areas except nurses and I am--and was then-- a computer geek), and swore an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". That is the first and foremost responsibility of our soldiers.

Our 8th Amendment in the Constitution's Bill of Rights clearly states that "cruel and unusual punishment" is forbidden. You don't have to be a Constitutional law scholar to know that. Most 10 year olds know that; if not from school, they can pick it up just from watching police programs on TV.

Those soldiers are fully responsible for committing unConstitutional acts. Even if they were ordered to do this by officers, they had the responsibility to disobey those orders. The court marshall concerning the My Lai Massacre settled that once and for all. Protecting the Constitution overrides all other concerns. Had they disobeyed and ended up in court marshall for disobeying orders, they would have won their case easily... and probably gotten a commendation for it.

I seriously doubt that anyone at the Washington level holds any culpability in this. They are generally expecting our soldiers to protect the Constitution as they are sworn to do.

This is the work of some seriously sick people. They will be held accountable for as far up the chain of command as it goes. But changing the Secretary of Defense in the middle of a war, especially when he isn't even implicated, is not a safe thing to do. In the US, people are innocent until proven guilty, and that includes high-level officials.

Happily, President Bush has backed Sec. Rumsfeld, and clearly doesn't care what other nations think about that support.

Theresa: "In the US, people are innocent until proven guilty, and that includes high-level officials."

Legally innocent yes, politically no. Vietnam is a good example. Would American abuses during it have taken place if top officials could pay for it with their jobs? War is serious business. But so is power abuse. This isn't about the war on terror, it's about our much older struggle to keep our own powers in check.

Abu Ghraib is yesterdays news, if it were ever really "news" to begin with. Personally, I have seen kids go through worse "torture" just pledging to get into a college fraternity. I am not excusing the acts, they were repugnant, but the reality is that the acts I have seen were humiliating not torturous.

The usual suspects (left wing media, Arab media, hostile European governments) are sensationalizing the images of Abu Ghraib to cast dispersion on the US and Bush. Any opportunity to wave a finger at the US and portray the US as evil and ugly are seized upon with what can only be described as an equally ugly, evil and disgraceful fervor.

The result of this relentless propaganda campaign is the brutal butchering of Nick Berg. His death is in the heads of those that used the images of Abu Ghraib to fan the flames of hate and make a quick buck selling newspapers. Goebbels would, no doubt, admire the cohesion, unity and consistency of message shown by the world media in the push to demonize America and Americans.

Well done!

FC

This is via Vodkapundit, can link to the article there.

Boston residents got more than they bargained for this morning when their copy of the Globe came complete with graphic photos depicting U.S. troops gang-raping Iraqi women.
Problem is the photos are fake. They were taken from pornographic websites and disseminated by anti-American propagandists, as first reported by WND a week ago....

---

They can show a lot, but won't show Berg. No, no agenda.

Bjorn, I agree with your argument, at least, partially. We separate on what appears to be your categorical statement “Name, shame, condemn and punish. All the way to the top. This means that it might be necessary for Donald Rumsfeld to go. Not because he is personally responsible.” The statement has facile appeal but, at bottom, does not distinguish between malfeasance and negligence or even nonfeasance. In my view, to even consider asking for Rumsfield to resign, one would have to show some act by him or lack of act in the face of circumstance that would have put a normal person on notice to begin asking questions. To argue that the "buck stops here" is simply the equivalent of a purge. In the absence of that I think that your proposal is the equal of “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”

I haven't watched the video of the beheading of Nick Berg by Muslim terrorists, nor do I plan to do so. I don't need to watch the video to know what happened and who is responsible. I do think, however, that the producers and reporters from CBS's "60 Minutes II" all should watch it. So should the network bigwigs who greenlighted releasing all of the lurid pictures from Abu Ghraib. They should view the consequences that resulted from releasing those pictures to a world-wide public.

Am I saying that CBS is partially responsible for the murder of Nick Berg? Yes. Their irresponsible coverage of the Abu Ghraib story threw gasoline on an already-burning fire, and greatly increased the danger to all Americans in the Middle East, both soldiers and civilians like Nick Berg. It's one thing to do an investigative report on a story like that, but it's something else indeed to flood the airwaves of the Muslim world with horrific pictures guaranteed to inflame public opinion in the region. The images were not necessary to tell the story.

Imagine that something like that had occurred in post-World War II Japan in 1946. Suppose that a newspaper that was highly critical of President Truman had not only discovered the abuse story, but also had hundreds of lurid photographs of American GIs abusing Japanese prisoners and sexually assaulting Japanese women. Would that newspaper have published those pictures in an attempt to discredit Truman, even though it would have inflamed Japanese public opinion and increased the danger to American occupation troops? No. Not just "No," but "Hell No!" Why? Because at that time, American media outlets were still sensitive to things like "endangering American lives." They were more responsible then. Today, all they care about is trying to get that Pulitzer Prize, and they don't care if anyone else is endangered by the story or not.

Frankly, I don't think they need to be releasing any more of the horrible pictures from Abu Ghraib. We know what happened. It's being dealt with. And if more pictures are released, how many more Americans will suffer Nick Berg's fate? It's not worth it, no matter how much those networks are salivating at the prospect of showing barely-fuzzed pictures of Iraqi prisoners being sodomized with objects and an American soldier raping an Iraqi woman. How many more must die for your Pulitzer ambitions, CBS?

Bjorn, I agree with you that power abuse is serious and should be punished. However, Rumsfeld is an extremely competent and creative Secretary of Defense, and the War on Terror (Islamofascism) would be greatly diminished without him.

Above from me. Sorry.

Also, you should notice how various U.S. posters have come to despise the media. If newspapers and TV reporters were once respected--probably because of the Watergate Scandal, 1973-1974--they have now thrown away that respect.

Imagine being so angry with the U.S. media that we want to torture them by making them watch on a big screen the death of Nick Berg. Is that not ironic?

I would also like to torture your Norwegian reporter who made up the anti Israel story you posted a few days ago. That reporter should have to pick up the body parts of murdered Israeli children and prepare them for their funerals.

It is a truly sad situation when the media has become allied with murderers and can reasonably be accused of helping to add to the mayhem.

Hiding behind the First Amendment does not lessen their guilt. The media has actual blood on their hands.

I fully agree with Bush, Rumsfeld is a superb defense minister.

Asking him to resign over this grossly overplayed prisoner "abuse" case is ridiculous.

I for one look forward to 4 more years of Rummy, to the despair of the partisan anti-Bush press both here and abroad.

Bjorn, "Legally innocent yes, politically no. Vietnam is a good example. Would American abuses during it have taken place if top officials could pay for it with their jobs? War is serious business. But so is power abuse. This isn't about the war on terror, it's about our much older struggle to keep our own powers in check. "

There is reason to believe that the "abuses" in Vietnam were grossly exaggerated. John Kerry's candidacy and his emphasis on his Vietnam record has also focused attention on his record AFTER Vietnam, as the spokesman for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

Apparently, when he went to speak to the Senate about supposed atrocities, it has been revealed that a vast majority of the people who told him these stories may have been frauds. MOST of the men who told Kerry their stories had never been in Vietnam at all... they were military men who had been stationed in the US during the war! And another group of them had never been in the military, but had stolen the identifications of men who had been. And of those who had actually been in Vietnam, not a single one of them could come up with even ONE witness to the "atrocity" they reported, so their stories are now suspect. The appearance now is that they were just repeating rumors.

The one and only PROVEN atrocity was the My Lai Massacre. That was the one and only incident where names, dates, and particulars could be brought to court in a reasonably fair manner, supported by documentation and not just rumor. And the soldiers involved were convicted back in 1971.

Now I am sure that some of the reported atrocities DID happen. Such things always happen in wars. But the overwhelming majority of the soldiers who were there have said over and over through the last 30 or so years that they had heard rumors but had never actually seen anything like an "atrocity" happen, and dismissed it as "scuttlebutt" (a military term for run-amuck rumors, like urban legend).

Do a Google (or whatever you prefer) on a book called "Stolen Valor". A researcher tried to find the truth about Vietnam, and unearthed some pretty astounding information!

Now, if it turns out that the "Stolen Valor" version of this story is the TRUE one, would it not be unfair that we politically "hung" the "guilty"? And if it's true that it was a fake issue created by the anti-war activists, it was also a grave injustice against the Vietnam Veterans. This could turn out to be one of the greatest injustices in US history!

I'm waiting for an outcome to the Vietnam story. And I will be pleased to wait for a KNOWN outcome to the Iraq story. This one is certainly true, with the documentation available, but who is responsible? I'll wait and see. The first court marshall is already underweigh, so it shouldn't be long.

PS: How do you display italics on this type of board? I wanted to display the book title in italics, but used UBB code, which apparently doesn't work :(.

http://home.comcast.net/~incubus52/lestweforget.html

I was off gathering pictures and movies of just this kind of thing the night before it happened. Today I have people hitting my site from the House.gov address. I suspect I either will soon be recruited or shot.

I need a beer.

Bjorn, "War is serious business. But so is power abuse. This isn't about the war on terror, it's about our much older struggle to keep our own powers in check."

I know I'm getting a little long-winded here, but this will be my last post tonight. I promise :).

What I was getting at concerning the responsibility of the soldiers who committed those acts is this:

Washington does NOT micro-manage our military. They EXPECT the individual soldiers to defend the Constitution as sworn. I said that above, but apparently it needs clarification.

The individual soldiers are expected to defend the Constitution. Their officers are expected to SEE TO IT that the soldiers defend the Constitution. The officers above the officers are expected to see to it that the lower level officers are doing their job. THAT is where "the buck stops". When that top LOCAL commander gets sloppy, he or she is culpable, but not directly responsible for the acts. This has resulted in their receiving a reprimand. And a reprimand is a MAJOR disaster to a military career!

The soldiers directly involved are directly responsible. Orders or no orders, they are liable for their own actions.

Personal responsibility is a major issue in the US. Making economic or socio-economic excuses in civilian courts has caused so much trouble here in this country that the general public is starting to go through a backlash of actually blaming the culprit instead of coddling him as a "victim of society". This court marshall that started today is going to be a test case to see how far left-wing idiology has seeped into our military, and if the My Lai case is still etched in stone.

But the others here are right. Today the story is Nick Berg.

Yesterday the lefties here were demanding that Rumsfeld resign. Today, they are demanding that we GET Al Qaeda. As there are presently many of them in Iraq, that is the logical place to fight them. In political discussion forums, I have seen MANY anti-war liberals turn around 180 degrees, and finally come to the conclusion that maybe Al Qaeda were in Iraq all along, and that we can NOT negotiate with them. Even many of THEM are out for blood now.

If I may be pragmatic instead of emotional for a moment, Al Qaeda royally screwed up. They can't win unless the US loses interest in fighting. They were making strong inroads with those prison pictures. But they took the political capital they gained and flushed it down the toilet with this horrendous beheading! I haven't seen this many liberals turn completely around from one day to the next since 9/11!

Al Qaeda reminded us that our enemies are barbarians. That reminder has taken quite nicely!

I like Rumsfeld, in contrast to other administration figures (Ashcroft, Cheney) whom I'd much rather see gone.

But the government used to run under the principle of The Buck Stops Here -- if there was a systematic problem on someone's watch, he resigned. Clinton completely obliterated the idea that anyone is ever responsble for anything that happens on his watch and we'd be better off if it returned.

The problem is: Muslim killings, violence and death threats are so common people take them for granted. Why isn't there more uproar in the Islamic world against the treatement of ex-Muslims? Like this comment:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001924.php

Helo, Did u see the video of the american that was beheaded in Iraq??Thats what gonna happen to you when i and my friends are gonna catch u.We are currently working on finding information about you,one of my friends is a computer genius.I have gathered muslims all over the world to dispatch any of them to your location.Once u have been beheaded we will use your head to play soccer and your body will be cut into pieces and fed to the dogs.Shut down this website,then we shall not kill you.I give you 1 month to think about it.Make your decision wisely.

The day Muslims face up to hatred like this, I will feel much more sympathy for them.

Seeking to end corruption in our leaders by seeking better candidates.

Shame America can't have two more to choose from. These two don't seem to inspire much national unity, or trust.

I can grow a beard really quick. Maybe I'll start wearing a tall black hat.

Franko: "Abu Ghraib is yesterdays news, if it were ever really "news" to begin with. Personally, I have seen kids go through worse "torture" just pledging to get into a college fraternity. I am not excusing the acts, ..."

No but you're downplaying them. Rape is a usual part of college hazing rituals? Apart from that this was not torture in the physical sense. But humiliation - pretty extreme, by any standard, but particularly Arab ones - is a form of psychological torture. And it was done for fun, in the name of the US army, not with volunteers but with prisoners. We can argue about how to respond, but to question that this is news?

Interesting use of scare quotes, btw. The first is meaningless, unless you question the very concept of news. The second carries meaning, but I would respect you more of you just said straight out that this was not torture, instead of "implying" it with "scare" quotes like a Chomskyite.

"The usual suspects (left wing media, Arab media, hostile European governments) are sensationalizing the images of Abu Ghraib to cast dispersion on the US and Bush."

Yes, but irrelevant for how to respond, which is all I'm concerned with here. Read an article in Aftenposten recently where a psychologist called this form of abuse a logical consequence of the White House rhetoric about "evil". Nonsense, of course. But if you let that stuff influence your response to this abuse you're not being principled, you're being stubborn.

"The result of this relentless propaganda campaign is the brutal butchering of Nick Berg."

No it's not. An excuse is not the same as a reason. Terrorists will seize on any excuse to kill Americans. The reason they're doing it is different, though. To them, this scandal matters only on the propaganda level, they don't care how we respond to it. To us, these things are really important. We know from our own histories what happens when government power escapes democratic control. That is what has happened here.

Sandy P: "They can show a lot, but won't show Berg. No, no agenda."

Agenda, of course. But how is that relevant here?

Herbie: "In my view, to even consider asking for Rumsfield to resign, one would have to show some act by him or lack of act in the face of circumstance that would have put a normal person on notice to begin asking questions."

Perhaps, but the responsibility I'm talking about is something else: The political responsibility Rumsfeld has for everything done by the people beneath him. This is meaningless on a personal level, but meaningful from a democratic perspective. We want politicians to worry about these things. We want every level of the military to worry. That does make them somewhat less efficient as politicians and officers than they might have been, but military efficiency is not the top priority of a democracy. Democratic control is, prevention of power abuse. Not talking about reasonable mistakes here, such as the accidental killing of civilians in an attack, but deliberate abuse of power in the name of the government. Preventing this is one of the central functions of a democracy, and that requires a sense of responsibility by top officials for everything done in the name of their organization.

BarCodeKing: "Am I saying that CBS is partially responsible for the murder of Nick Berg? Yes. Their irresponsible coverage of the Abu Ghraib story threw gasoline on an already-burning fire ... it's something else indeed to flood the airwaves of the Muslim world with horrific pictures guaranteed to inflame public opinion in the region. The images were not necessary to tell the story."

But they _were_ necessary, at least if the intention was to tell a true story. Anything less, while the images were available, would have been to lie. There is a difference between the words "sexual humiliation of prisoners" and to actually see it, and it's the difference between a dry and vague description and a shocking demonstration. These acts deserve shock and outrage, and without the photographs that would not have happened.

I suggest you shift responsibility away from CBS to the people who actually abused these prisoners. _They_ are responsible for the effect this has had on the Arab world. The major world media could have prevented some of this by hushing it up, (though for how long?), but the moment those prisoners were stripped naked and toyed with for the amusement of American soldiers, any responsibility the media has towards US interests in Iraq was overridden by their responsibility to expose power abuse by the US government.

"We know what happened. It's being dealt with."

Because there was a scandal, yes. Without that scandal, we would all have been ignorant about this. Other American soldiers would have felt more ok doing these things themselves. Not because American soldiers are barbarians and sadists, but because some of them are, and always will be, and it's quite clear that the military culture in at least some parts of the US military was not sufficiently prohibitive of this kind of behavior. Perhaps now it will be. And it's all thanks to the media who made a scandal out of it.

"And if more pictures are released, how many more Americans will suffer Nick Berg's fate?"

Many, but they will anyway. Don't forget why the Islamists launched this war. It was not because of American prison abuse, which they despise more for the sexual angle than the wrongness of abusing prisoners. They hate you, and want to kill you. Abu Ghraib just provided them with an excuse.

Tororo: "Also, you should notice how various U.S. posters have come to despise the media. If newspapers and TV reporters were once respected--probably because of the Watergate Scandal, 1973-1974--they have now thrown away that respect."

Agreed. But I'm only concerned with what happened at Abu Ghraib and how the US should respond. You can't let the motives of the people who abuse this scandal stand in the way of doing what's right and necessary. Rumsfeld may be a good Secretary of Defense. I don't know him that well, but if he really is vital to the war on terror, that may outweigh the need to deal with Abu Ghraib properly. I'd like to see someone make that case, though. It's not enough to show that he has been useful in the past. Is he vital for wherever the war on terror goes next? Is there noone who can replace him?

Kenny: "Asking him to resign over this grossly overplayed prisoner "abuse" case is ridiculous."

More scare quotes. Are you saying that this was not abuse? Please tell me what it was, then. Straight out, plain words, no euphemisms or ironic stabs at political opponents. How would you define what these American soldiers did?

Theresa: "Washington does NOT micro-manage our military. They EXPECT the individual soldiers to defend the Constitution as sworn. I said that above, but apparently it needs clarification."

No, I follow you. I'm not trying to rob these people of their personal and legal responsibility for what they have done. They should be tried, kicked out of the military, and sentenced to years in prison. Unless they acted on orders, noone else bears legal responsibility here.

But there is another form of responsibility that is important to us as democracies - the political responsibility a top official has for whatever is done in his name. This responsibility is, in one sense, unfair, because no official knows even a fraction of what is done by his department. But it is important all the same to make them feel responsible, to keep them on edge, and give them strong incentives to keep their organization clean.

Not because this particular incident was so horrible that it is worth the loss of a good Secretary of Defense, but because the threat of power abuse in general is worth it. If we don't strike down hard on government abuse of power when we see it, the abuse we don't see will just continue. People who work for the government can come to feel a sense of power and protection against the outside world that encourages them to act outside their legal bounds. That is a threat to our democracies. Not a large one, but it can grow large when we don't make a big fuss about such abuse, when we hush it down for patriotic reasons or just because we like to keep things in perspective.

Bjorn, I don't think that you really answered my concerns. Your view, when run to its end, is simply a purge -- very much like the communes during the French revolution and you know how I feel about the French. :-)

Anonymous: Tell me who you are so I know which concerns I ignored. ;)

Dictionary defines purge as a cleansing, or a removal of political undesirables. This isn't about Rumsfeld's personal responsibility or his politics. It's about giving top politicians a personal stake in the good behavior of their underlings. Perhaps the next Secretary of Defense will take an interest in the cultural or educational flaws that allowed this to happen. Other government employees and officials will get the same message: In this country, we take power abuse seriously. That's a good message to send any day. It's a shame it has to be sent now and in this way, but these actions have made it necessary.

Bjorn, sorry it is me -- Herbie :-). Ok but I still maintain that "to even consider asking for Rumsfield to resign, one would have to show some act by him or lack of act in the face of circumstance that would have put a normal person on notice to begin asking questions." In the absence of that I think that your proposal is the equal of “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”

Plagiarizing myself here. If you want to view the links, go to my blog.

Maybe you saw the story about how the Boston Globe published unedited pornographic pictures on the front page of its newspaper yesterday: Boston Globe publishes bogus GI rape pictures

The pictures actually came from a pornographic web site, and were given to the Globe by "activists." You can view the bogus pictures here, via Drudge (NOT WORK SAFE!!!)

The other day, I commented on another site that the media were salivating at the opportunity to display rape and sodomy pictures just like these. Some leftist told me that I was wrong, that they'd never show anything like that. Well, I'm calling 'bullshit!' on that, because there it is, right on the front page of the Boston Globe.

Things you CAN'T show in the American media:
1. Janet Jackson's tit
2. Images from 9/11, especially of "jumpers" (they don't want to rekindle American anger)
3. The video of the beheading of Nick Berg (you'll have a hell of a time trying to find a link to it, unless you know where to look; see reason for #2)
4. The video of the beheading of Daniel Pearl (see #3)

Things you CAN show in the American media:
1. Images of nude Iraqis being abused, if it will incite hatred of Americans and harm American morale
2. Pornographic images of an alleged rape of an Iraqi woman, on the FRONT PAGE of a major American newspaper, where CHILDREN can see it, for Chrissakes, if it will incite hatred of Americans and harm American morale; otherwise, see #1 in the things you CAN'T show.

Is it me, or is there one HUGE double standard among our media? They won't show images that will outrage and infuriate Americans, because they are afraid it will steel our resolve to win the war on terrorism. But they will show pornographic pictures of sexual acts that would get them fined by the FCC and claim that they are doing us a public service? Get the fuck out of here, you assclowns!

We can't ignore the abuse—not because of world opinion, or Arab opinion, or any supposed response by al Qaeda—but because of our own ethical or moral sense and because the license we give today may rebound on us tomorrow.

In my opinion, we should make one clear, honest apology to the world (and one only) and thereafter make it plain that we are cleaning up for our own sense of rightness. A thorough and open process is needed to find and punish all those guilty, from the brutalizers at the bottom to the lax (or brutal) at the top, and to make the necessary institutional changes. We also need to make sure—and make sure that everyone knows—that it will not deflect us from pursuing our real enemies.

I don't see the need to sack the top man just to make a political statement, but if you do then Rumsfeld still seems like the wrong person. I would have thought that the commander of US forces in Iraq, or the overall commander of the Army would be more logical, but if the buck does go as far as Rumsfeld, why does it not go on to Bush?

Bjorn,

"No but you're downplaying them. Rape is a usual part of college hazing rituals?"

Yes I am downplaying them. The images I have seen are no doubt, psychological torture. I have seen no images of rape so I can not comment on them. To my knowledge rape is not used as part of fraternity initiation rituals, although sexual humiliation often is.

“Interesting use of scare quotes, btw. The first is meaningless, unless you question the very concept of news. The second carries meaning, but I would respect you more of you just said straight out that this was not torture, instead of "implying" it with "scare" quotes like a Chomskyite.”

Perhaps we differ in our opinion of what news is. The fact that the military uses psychological torture to get information out of prisoners in war time is not news to me, but perhaps it is to you. The fact that some of this psychological torture went over the top is also not particularly news worthy to me. If this over the top psychological torture were to go unpunished, now that would be news to me.

Respecting me is entirely optional; this is your blog after all.

I am not sure what a Chomskyite is, but I assume from your context that it isn’t good. Maybe I am a Chomskyite, it probably depends on who you ask.

“Yes, but irrelevant for how to respond, which is all I'm concerned with here.”

OK mea culpa, I got off topic a bit.

“No it's not. An excuse is not the same as a reason. Terrorists will seize on any excuse to kill Americans. The reason they're doing it is different, though. To them, this scandal matters only on the propaganda level, they don't care how we respond to it.”

Yes it is an excuse, not a reason per se. However, it is an excuse made possible by an inconceivably hostile and irresponsible world press. The fact that you refer to propaganda here implies that you understand there is a connection between the actions of the terrorists and what is being reported in the news. Would Berg have been killed if the photos had not been released? Probably, he was Jewish. However the fact that the killers referred to the treatment of Iraqi prisoners as an excuse/reason for killing Berg tells us that there is a more than just a lazy connection between propaganda and action. (This is, again, off you original topic "how to respond," but I think it is not unrelated)

“To us, these things are really important. We know from our own histories what happens when government power escapes democratic control. That is what has happened here.”

The power of the American government has escaped democratic control? Are you sure about that? I would humbly suggest that recent events indicate that the American government is 100% under democratic control. Perhaps you mean that some individuals had temporarily escaped that control?

FC

Bjorn - Abu is white noise. Porn white noise. In the overall picture, a blip.

There were over 500 US court marshals (?) during WWII for stuff like this. Should have saved the post for a little history.

Since I was on vaca last week, I don't know if Rummy or W told the ME this is how we handle it, we prosecute. We hope to give you the opportunity to do the same. This is a teaching tool. Interestingly, Germany's also got a problem in Germany w/its' police, see David's Medienkritic. And funny, what do Iraqis really think? Too much, or not enough considering where they came from?

There was a joke going around about the difference between US and Saddam, under Saddam, one would get promoted.

Someone on LGF posted that on Tony Snow's radio show, only 2 papers are going w/Berg - everyone else is going for the porn.

Read Belmont Club, good post up. I encourage everyone to read it, cos you really won't find that info out there unless you're really, really looking for it.

The Prof linked to a posting at Don Sensing's place yesterday.

http://www.donaldsensing.com/2004_05_01_archive.html#108436671554845653

There's also a brouhaha at the Boston Globe, also from The Prof's page:

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Here, courtesy of Drudge, is a scan of the Globe print edition. It's not work safe, which I think answers the question above. And the depiction is clear enough that I don't think the Globe deserves to be let off the hook -- this wasn't accidental.

Fraudulent rape pics of Iraqi women and a very, very poor apology.

---

And you're right, this is what we are on occasion. We killed 23K of our own in 1 day. Bloodiest day in our history on our own soil. This next bit isn't directed at you.

Funny, so many people accuse the US of being black/white, this is dark shade of grey. Where's all the understanding, tolerance? We're only human, after all. No better than the rest of the world, as we're reminded. We are worse than the rest of the world, so what's the big deal? Shouldn't it be expected and blown off like "the world" does for the rest of the world when the rest of the world does it? (sarcasm off).

Bjorn,
One more point. You stated, "those prisoners were stripped naked and toyed with for the amusement of American soldiers"

It is in no way clear to me that the acts we have seen were done for only the amusement of soldiers. Psychological torture is an approved method of obtaining information during a war. So if putting Iraqi men in women’s underwear or on a leash held by a woman, will help the US get information that saves lives, then do it.

On the other hand rape and murder are not approved methods of extracting information. If rapes did occur then those responsible should be punished. no one in their right mind would disagree.

FC

Franko: "The fact that the military uses psychological torture to get information out of prisoners in war time is not news to me, but perhaps it is to you."

It's not - as I mentioned in the entry, some human rights organization (forgot which) have pointed to the approved use of psychological torture for interrogative purposes to show that what happened at Abu Ghraib was actually ordered from the top, and that is a deceptive way to score a point against psychological torture in general. I haven't decided what I think about that, but it's a separate issue. An interrogation is coldly rational and purposeful, you do what you need or can to get important information out of the subject. That is your top priority as an investigator. These people seemed to have as top priority their own sexual amusement. They were having fun. An interrogator who has fun applying psychological torture is a bad interrogator.

Actually, if this was done ostensibly as part of an interrogation, and not just on the whim of a few soldiers, that is a powerful argument against psychological torture in general. It shows how easy it is to go from cold purpose to personal enjoyment.

"I am not sure what a Chomskyite is, but I assume from your context that it isn?t good."

No you're not a Chomskyite. But your use of scare quotes remind me of the similar practice among anti-war and left-wing activists. Hamas aren't terrorists, they're "terrorists". I don't like scare quotes, they're too often used as rhetorical tricks and as substitutes for euphemisms. Hamas is by definition a terrorist organization, regardless of whether someone believes they're in the right or not, so in lack of a more accurate description some people use scare quotes to signal their disapproval of the term without having to think of a better one. Instead of arguing whether Hamas is a terrorist organization or a "terrorist" organization, we should argue whether it's sometimes right to use terrorism, and that debate is sidestepped with scare quotes. Same with "abuse". When a group of prison guards harass and humiliate their prisoners, particularly in a sexual way, that is by definition abuse. The question is whether they had a good reason to. If you believe they had, or that it this kind of abuse isn't so bad, I believe you should say so plainly, and not imply it with scare quotes.

"The fact that you refer to propaganda here implies that you understand there is a connection between the actions of the terrorists and what is being reported in the news. Would Berg have been killed if the photos had not been released? Probably, he was Jewish. However the fact that the killers referred to the treatment of Iraqi prisoners as an excuse/reason for killing Berg tells us that there is a more than just a lazy connection between propaganda and action."

Agreed, and Abu Ghraib was obviously a major propaganda victory for America's enemies. But the Islamists are always looking for excuses to kill Americans. It's like the dedication of a book. The book is already written, the dedication is an afterthought. What we easily forget when we think exclusively about reactions to this in the Arab world is that government power abuse is an important issue by itself, no matter who does it and where. It's important for the US to strike down on these things, not just to prevent propaganda disasters, but to avoid the corruption of your military forces. The propaganda over Abu Ghraib matters today, the American response to it will matter tomorrow, in the next war or occupation. Will there be more incidents like this the next time, or fewer? Depends entirely on how it is fought.

"I would humbly suggest that recent events indicate that the American government is 100% under democratic control. Perhaps you mean that some individuals had temporarily escaped that control?"

No, I meant what I wrote. Who is the government? Every single person who works for it, and acts on its behalf. When a person takes on a uniform, he _is_ the military. When he uses that uniform to abuse his power, the government he represents has abused its power, has escaped the democratic limitations placed on it. To a small degree, of course, but a government that is truly outside democratic control is often just Abu Ghraib on a much larger scale. Russia is a frightening example. They allow and encourage this and other forms of abuse and corruption on all levels, from the lowliest conscript in Chechnya to the top leaders. You're not on a slippery slope here, just about to descend into Russian conditions unless Rumsfeld is let go, but there is a slope, and a strong reaction to Abu Ghraib is part of the mechanism that keeps your society near the top of that slope.

Franko: "It is in no way clear to me that the acts we have seen were done for only the amusement of soldiers."

If this done as part of interrogation, that would change much. Not in the sense of making what happened better, just a different problem, requiring a different kind of response. Most of what I've written above depends on this not being intentionally part of an interrogation. Is there any evidence indicating this?

Hi.

What I would like to see is that unit disbanded permanently, and everybody from private (and civilian contractor) up to and including Donald Rumsfeld sacked or otherwise punished to the greatest extent that the law will allow, and I would like the law to be changed to allow harsher punishment in future cases.

What I don't want is: Donald Rumsfeld goes and it is a political victory for his opponents, a few low level soldiers take the heat and maybe even get off on "command influence" - and all the people in between get off because they are not exciting political targets, even though they are the most guilty ones for combining senior rank on the spot (in Iraq) with total lack of proper leadership and supervision.

Rumsfeld is actually innocent in this. But if you can get a proper purge of the truly guilty, he can go too, just for salutatory overkill. But if not, not. Punishing the politician in a political game while giving a free pass to the guilty officers is the worst option of all.

Would abuse take place if senior officials could lose their jobs? Yes, absolutely.

I speak with the New South Wales police force in mind. It was made almost immune to political influence. If the chief of police did not agree with the state premier, and the two could not get on ... the premier went, because there had to be a solution and the police chief could not be sacked on a politician's say-so. When corruption was discovered, again and again, the minister had to take responsibility, because that is a convention of parliamentary democracy. So gigantic, intractable, culturally entrenched police corruption flourished. As a minister, it just didn't pay to be against the police, even if their corruption and incompetence might later sink you. This taught me that when blame goes to the top, above the level where corruption is taking place, and the state's finest in uniform get treated as sacred cows, it's the worst solution of all.

Name, shame and punish the most senior people in the decision-making loop. Don't let the blame be kicked upstairs.

Bjorn, I get the feeling that you are judging U.S. government and activities from the point of view of a super-idealist (to coin a term). I doubt that most of the posters here would defend torture in prisons. You, however, are advocating a turnover of government at the highest levels because of this scandal. That is extremely unrealistic. Maybe in Norway such a practice would be more normal. I doubt it though.

Our Watergate Scandal was major major major. The impeachment of Clinton was major major major. This is not the normal way we do government. U.S. government would probably be unworkable if the government resigned every time there was a major scandal.

Consider the fact that the population of Norway is approximately the size of metropolitan Chicago. We have scandals galore in Chicago, but only rarely does the mayor resign.

Bjorn,
“No, I meant what I wrote. Who is the government? Every single person who works for it, and acts on its behalf.”

I understand where you are going with this, but I can’t go there with you. For example, Mullah Krekar is a Norwegian, when Ansar al Islam kills Americans I don’t hold the Norwegian government responsible just because they are harboring him. However, I do wish they would get rid of him and perhaps punish the Norwegians responsible for keeping him around. Maybe the analogy isn’t spot on but I am sure you get my meaning. The US government is self correcting institution. My understanding is that the abuses were being investigated before the pictures went public. Had there been an attempt at a cover up, then I think the political response should be more sweeping.

“Most of what I've written above depends on this not being intentionally part of an interrogation. Is there any evidence indicating this?”

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/20802.htm

In the above article Lynndie England claims she was acting on orders from up the chain of command. I am assuming the orders she got were probably to interrogate the prisoners; not orders to use the prisoners to satisfy degenerate sexual appetites.

I think part of the reason we are not seeing eye to eye on this issue is because I am thinking a bit emotionally. I saw the video of Berg having his head sawed off and really wish I had not. It was horrific and the screams and chants of Allah Akbar and images will haunt me for a very long time. I think against this sort of emotional back drop it is difficult for me to care if some militant Iraqis or Al Qaida types have to put up with some sexual humiliation. I understand this is not a reasoned position and I am conflicted in my feelings.

FC

Bjorn, I think a lot of your commentary misses what the issue is.. The rules of war were designed to prohibit certain actions in a time when nation states were fighting or about to fight. For example one nation might say I want this land or this access and if not I will attack. The target can then strike back or call the bluff or capitulate as my favorite subject have always done – the French. Here we have a) not a nation state b) a group that is not prepared to negotiate over anything except a Hudna treaty c) is prepared to kill and d) does not care if they are killed and indeed thinks that death and becoming a shaheed is good. In short, the enemy represents pure ruthfulness. The war is in a war that is not about power, economics or really even ideology – it is about the extinction of Western civilization and values. I am increasing of the view that unless we are prepared to adopt the same ruthless methods that there is a high likelihood we will lose. I, for one, am not prepared to bequeath to my grandchildren a legacy that may read something like “for a history of the tragic denouement of Western civilization – a civilization strangled by its own values see footnote 37, supra and the book Mohammad, Messenger” I accept that this calls into question the essence of Western morality; however that essence is not worth much if we lose. Accordingly I am of the view that if torture works to obtain information that it is unfortunately an acceptable price to be paid and we will sort out the morality later. Hand to hand combat in war is pure hell -- you use your teeth and rip off ears, you gouge out eyes, you grab testicles and crush them; you stick fingers in nostril and rip apart nasal cavities. The Marquis of Queensberry rules do not apply to hand to hand combat and if someone wants them to apply here then either they apply to all sides or to no side.

During the first Gulf war US military Chaplains (including Rabbis) buried Iraqi dead with in full conformity with Islamic law. The other side here does not and prefers to burn and hang bodies and behead people caught.

The fact is that what is a war crime or torture is not so very clear. For example during WWII the Germans at the Battle of Stalingrad forced civilians back into the city. Those Germans were charged with war crimes and the charges were dismissed the Nuremberg courts rules that such pressure on an enemy was not a war crime and acceptable. In France, when the Germans were executing any partisans they caught without a trial, the French told them that if they did not stop that they would execute German prisoners. The German did not stop and the French executed some 37 German prisoners. They too were brought up on war crimes charges and the charges were dismissed.

People can and will debate the niceties of what is going on; however that does nothing to detract from the conclusion -- or at least mine -- that we must win. As I think Patton said when asked how he was going to make sure someone would cooperate: “Give me their balls and their hearts and mind will follow.”

Bjorn, To continue and as recently noted in “The Sacred Muslim Practice of Beheading” By Andrew G. Bostom in FrontPageMagazine.com

“Reactions to . . . jihadist decapitations . . . make clear that . . . such murders are consistent with sacred jihad practices, as well as Islamic attitudes towards all non-Muslim infidels. . . . * * * The classical Muslim jurist al-Mawardi . . .(d. 1058) . . . wrote: . . . regarding infidel prisoners . . . “the amir [ruler] has the choice of . . .:put them to death by cutting their necks; . . . enslave them . . .; . . . ransom them . . .; and . . . pardon them. Allah, may he be exalted, says, 'When you encounter those [infidels] who deny [the Truth=Islam] then strike [their] necks' (Qur'an sura 47, verse 4)”....Abu’l-Hasan al-Mawardi, al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah." [The Laws of Islamic Governance, trans. by Dr. Asadullah Yate, (London), Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd., 1996, p. 192.

That is what we face today under Islamic jurisprudence. I am not so concerned about the Western "Rules of War"

Bjorn, To continue and as recently noted in “The Sacred Muslim Practice of Beheading” By Andrew G. Bostom in FrontPageMagazine.com

“Reactions to . . . jihadist decapitations . . . make clear that . . . such murders are consistent with sacred jihad practices, as well as Islamic attitudes towards all non-Muslim infidels. . . . * * * The classical Muslim jurist al-Mawardi . . .(d. 1058) . . . wrote: . . . regarding infidel prisoners . . . “the amir [ruler] has the choice of . . .:put them to death by cutting their necks; . . . enslave them . . .; . . . ransom them . . .; and . . . pardon them. Allah, may he be exalted, says, 'When you encounter those [infidels] who deny [the Truth=Islam] then strike [their] necks' (Qur'an sura 47, verse 4)”....Abu’l-Hasan al-Mawardi, al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah." [The Laws of Islamic Governance, trans. by Dr. Asadullah Yate, (London), Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd., 1996, p. 192.

That is what we face today under Islamic jurisprudence. I am not so concerned about the Western "Rules of War" They don't think any of this is wrong

The last sentence should read "Islamics don't think that what they are doing is wrong and, indeed, believe it to be religiously sanctioned.

The Geneva Convention is a past-looking document. Provisions are put in place AFTER something happens.

In short, not pre-emptive.

New type of war, new type of enemy, no rules or new rules.

Can't fight the new war w/old rules. We'll lose.

Some old rules/values will apply, not all.

---

Also, Instapundit chock full of bloggy goodness as always. I think Abu G's jumped the shark.

Top ten searches are:

Right now the 10 phrases most searched for are:
nick berg video
nick berg
berg beheading
beheading video
nick berg beheading video
nick berg beheading
berg video
berg beheading video
"nick berg"
video nick berg

---

Fox TV will have a movie out about terrorists taking over a San Diego nuke plant.

I wonder which movie will resound more, that one or the one about global warming?

I have 12 plants w/in a 90 mile radius and sit on the largest body of fresh water in the world, IIRC. New requirements are a fence strong enough to provide a 40-sec. delay. However, we're not protected against shoulder-fired missiles into the core.

Certain parts of the American mindset might just be girding for war, 3 years after 3000 of the world's citizens died.

W/O the help of our media.

Also, Patton, it's not up to us to die for our country, it's to make the other poor bastard die for his. Not the exact quote.

Except this isn't about their country.

Rummy's not going anywhere until after the election, and then maybe. Don't listen to the partisan hacks from both sides, even polling shows 2/3 of Americans don't think Rummy should go. But it is early in the game, isn't it?

Senator Lieberman in the Wall St. J today:

"Most Democrats and Republicans, including President Bush and Sen. Kerry, agree that we must successfully finish what we have started in Iraq. Now is the time for all who share that goal to make our agreement publicly clear, to stress what unites us. Many argue that we can only rectify the wrongs done in the Iraqi prisons if Donald Rumsfeld resigns. I disagree. Unless there is clear evidence connecting him to the wrongdoing, it is neither sensible nor fair to force the resignation of the secretary of defense, who clearly retains the confidence of the commander in chief, in the midst of a war. I have yet to see such evidence. Secretary Rumsfeld’s removal would delight foreign and domestic opponents of America’s presence in Iraq.

But, as we are showing in our response to Abu Ghraib, we are a nation of laws, and therefore must punish only those who are proven guilty. The Iraqi prison scandal has been a nightmare at an already difficult moment in the war in Iraq. But our cause remains as critical as ever to our security and our values. We must therefore persist in it. With determination and confidence, we should recall President Lincoln’s words at another difficult moment in American history in pursuit of another just cause: “Let us have faith that right makes might; and in that faith let us do our duty as we understand it.”

Now you've gone and done it, Herbie, you used a quote w/"faith" in it. One of our problems is that we have "faith."

And "right makes might" get the smelling salts, Ethel, that will give some Euros the vapors.

Sandy, I beginning to like you :-)

Hi,
I have been reading these entries with great interest. The only problem with your web site is that's it's so long. It'll take me quite a while to read it all. I have to agree with your opinions. These acts of prisoner abuse are of course deplorable and a number of soldiers will pay dearly for their actions I am sure. The military polices its own.
The worst criminals in this whole incident are the journalists (I use the term loosely) who have exploited the situation for ratings and advertising revenue. Those who report the news bang loud and hard on the Freedom of the Press drum but conveniently forget that with any freedom comes great responsibility. Journalists, correspondents, and anchormen used to know that. Just because we can legally televise or print an incident, doesn't mean we should.
The media blitz of war crimes against Iraqui prisoners has distracted the gullible American public from more important issues concerning the war, will possiblly cause hateful sentiments towards veterans of this conflict ala Vietnam, and has cost Nicholas Berg his life. It's doubtful that he will be the last American executed in retaliation.
The actions of these soldiers while viewed as reprhensible are also not original. War, violence, and positions of authority have always brought out the best in some and the worst in others. No doubt historical chronicles can relate situations of prisoner and civilian abuse by all parties in every war dating back to Biblical times.
Members of the media have sensationalized this and every event they can unearth for self promotion. Sadly, there wouldn't be a market for news like this if so many Americans didn't have an insatiable appetite for scandal. This unfortunate mind set craves information dealing with violence, depravity, and perversion. Can anyone say Michael and Kobe?
The first rule of any profession, not just medicine, should be "First Do No Harm". Journalists should have that imprinted on their cell phones and laptops as should we all.

Franko,

About your comment,

"My understanding is that the abuses were being investigated
before the pictures went public. Had there been an attempt
at a cover up, then I think the political response should be
more sweeping."

It was a defense attorney for one the soldiers being
courtmartialed that gave the pictures to the press, specifically
Seymour Hersch of the New York Times.

How this action helped his client I'm less than clear, I suspect
this lawyer was not really acting in his client's interest.
Regardless three of the U.S. soldiers seen in the pictures were
not just being investigated but already in stages of courtmartial
before any publicity.

See www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact

Well, Herbie, I might live in flyover country, but I am from a blue state.

Sandy, what is a blue state?

Oh, Herbie, you can't be serious?! Since 2000.

Blue - dem/urbane/urban sophisticated/ educated/tolerant liberals

red - VRWC extreme fascists

Bjorn,
A fine piece. News has been developing apace on this, so you may have changed your mind about Rumsfeld's "who will rid me of these insurgents" style complicity in the matter. It may be a quibble, but I think Rumsfeld's sacking will be more than symbolic, since I think he, Feith, Cambone, and Miller all condoned and encouraged a weakening of standards that led to Abu Ghraib. "Criminal negligence" seems about the right charge to me.

Texas Beth,
"The military polices its own.
The worst criminals in this whole incident are the journalists (I use the term loosely) who have exploited the situation for ratings and advertising revenue."

Nonsense. Our system is explicitly predicated on no one "policing their own" and is implicitly predicated on an informed citizenry. Your post is a variety of "shooting the messenger."

The worst criminals in this whole "incident" are the criminals, not those who report about them. Media coverage of this "incident" reflects the interests and values of the news organizations and many of their readers.

I put "incident" in 'scare quotes' because there were numerous apparent crimes at Abu Ghraib, and similar ones elsewhere in Iraq and Afghanistan, and possibly in Guantanamo. One crime is an incident. This many make a policy. That's why Rumsfeld et al must go, and why Bush shouldn't be returned to office in November.

It was a defense attorney for one the soldiers being courtmartialed that gave the pictures to the press, specifically Seymour Hersch of the New York Times.

http://need.imoney555.com/money-clip/ comfortabletubwatchit

http://credit-history.finances-inco.com meltplugsmoke

Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/689