Democracy: messy, difficult, and not our best export. Perhaps you remember the quiz listing the countries we've bombed in the last 50 years which have failed to become democracies. I was reflecting on that and considering the state of our own democracy. We aren't the priciple's best spokesperson.

Have you seen how low voter turnout is? Have you seen the plentiful evidence of corruption in the current system? Have you read the scandals associated with people who have been financing our government officials and persuading them to pass laws in their own favor? The way democratically elected governments abroad have always been replaced my repressive, U.S.-friendly regimes with U.S. covert assistance? At the moment, the system we have is distant from the ideals upon which it was founded, and more people seem to stop believing and participating in it all the time.

All the while, there is the active attempt to undermine our democratic freedoms with big-invasive-government laws which should be anathema to our beliefs, but which are being promoted by both lawmakers and panicked citizens alike. (toledoblade.com) It seems like, in a moment of national crisis, it is democracy that we would cling to and defend, rather than attempt to disassemble.

Those who would surrender liberty for security deserve neither.
-- Ben Franklin

It doesn't jibe that we are "fighting for freedom" without intending to protect freedom.

After some reflection, I don't think that's actually what ordinary, non-profiteering war promoters are fighting for. I have a modest theory.

Many of the folks quoted in newspapers are demanding 100% obedience to our leaders, offering to sacrifice the freedoms on which our country was to operate, decrying the accurate reporting of news and of the occupation's lack of progress, and providing awkwardly self-contradictory expressions of fealty to the country, right or wrong. Especially wrong. But what makes our system different from a monarchy or totalitarian state if we demand such complete and unquestioning obedience? What can we hope to accomplish through blind loyalty?

I think the answer is: a complete lack of responsibility for world events, combined with the self-satisfaction of absolute "truth."

If you look at Americans, especially those with fundamentalist leanings, you see a demand for certainty: announcements that there is only one way to live life, that there is only one church that has the right god and right message, that there is only one way to be patriotic, that there is only one way to serve your country, that there is only one nation that enjoys the one god's protection, we're number one, we have the highest standard of living of anyone (well, with numerous exceptions), our way is the best and only way... They're looking for an absolute model. The ambiguity of the real world - lying Presidents, soldiers who commit atrocities, persecution of brown people - is too much for them. They want ONE answer, and reassurance that it is the ONLY answer.

A colleague who has proposed that the American public would be well suited by a return to a monarchy system isn't far wrong. Monarchies are much better with absolutes: chosen by the one god to rule, demanding loyalty on par with the one correct god, always divinely inspired, always correct. It's a great model of ONE way - and excuses citizens from having to do the hard work required to support a democracy.

Democracy IS hard work. You need to stay informed of the issues! Choose between many candidates! Consider running for office! Vote! Attend hearings! Chime in on key subjects to be sure your representatives know your view! Organize your community! It's so much work! Obedience, especially the unquestioning kind, is FAR easier. Just sit and know that higher powers have decided it all for you, and you just have to obey.

Obedience and faith in absent ideals provides a consistent compass. Facts need not apply. It's nicer to think we're the richest nation on earth than work to solve poverty in our neighborhoods. It's nicer to think other nations are just jealous when we wield power for undemocratic purposes, and they don't benefit. It's nicer to think that we've overwritten the 10 commandments as a reward for our inherent greatness than that we need to really consider our actions. Doubt can be painful. Doubt can be divisive. It's harder to be convinced that your nation is absolutely good when you know what your government is really doing in your name - such knowledge creates some responsibility to repair the system. Which requires effort. It is MUCH easier to deny that there are problems, and to claim that everything is fine. When bad news surfaces, plead ignorance.

("Death camps? We had no idea. But we know we're number 1!")

An emotional need for an absolute position explains the zeal and defensiveness with which people defend undemocratic (and even un-Christian) activities our nation has embarked upon, which they don't understand and can't explain. They're already in their absolute construct, which in some cases is modeled on fundamentalist (absolutist) beliefs. They're just waiting for the rest of us to join in, are mystified that we haven't, and are hoping that we'll be quiet soon.

Unnatural causes: the impact of Abu Ghraib on families. It looks like ALL of the deaths of all prisoners in US custody should be investigated by an impartial, non US military entity.

A Death at Abu Ghraib: Family: Iraqi Was Murdered in Prison; U.S. Cites Natural Causes (npr.org, 07/09/04) provides the story of a family which suffered the loss of their family patriarch.

Their story isn't unique: the US military raided their home at night and took the men away. ("A soldier told the family that a neighbor had turned them in as suspected insurgents, for a $500 reward.") They were abused. Ultimately, none of the men abducted and held for more than a month were charged with any crime. This story has been repeated ever since the end of the war, and is sadly familiar.

In this case, the tribal leader of the family was tortured, denied medical care, and then died. The military "investigated" without investigating, concluding that the (not released) autopsy report concluding that heart failure was the cause of death, therefore the circumstances surrounding the death aren't relevant, and so this man died of 'natural causes.'

Refusal to provide care isn't considered "natural." But this shouldn't come as a surprise. The U.S. prison system is rife with abuse, and the prison agencies are found guilty of denying care again and again. The same mentality that dehumanizes convicts here, justifying all manner of abuse, has been exported. Some of the prison guards in Iraq were prison guards in the U.S., and some were at prisons were abuse had occurred and created domestic scandals. (phillyimc.org)

TNR Online's "PAKISTAN FOR BUSH. July Surprise?" (tnr.com, 07/07/04) provides this update on the 'war on terror:'

According to one source in Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), "The Pakistani government is really desperate and wants to flush out bin Laden and his associates after the latest pressures from the U.S. administration to deliver before the [upcoming] U.S. elections." Introducing target dates for Al Qaeda captures is a new twist in U.S.-Pakistani counterterrorism relations--according to a recently departed intelligence official, "no timetable[s]" were discussed in 2002 or 2003--but the November election is apparently bringing a new deadline pressure to the hunt....

A third source, an official who works under ISI's director, Lieutenant General Ehsan ul-Haq, informed tnr that the Pakistanis "have been told at every level that apprehension or killing of HVTs [High Value Targets] before [the] election is [an] absolute must." What's more, this source claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: "The last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during [ul-Haq's] meetings in Washington." Says McCormack: "I'm aware of no such comment." But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.

I'd think that LAST YEAR or the YEAR BEFORE would have been better. But it appears that the early capture of bin Laden would not be "better" for everyone's purposes.

Comment from my source for this, Bob Harris of thismodernworld.com:

The article goes on to detail the carrot-and-stick measures used to crank up the pressure on Islamabad to deliver up Bin Laden in a timely fashion.

Which means they could have done this earlier....

We should rejoice at Osama's capture, whenever it happens. But if Bin Laden suddenly shows up as scheduled, this should be understood, in advance, as prima facie evidence George W. Bush has spent years -- years! -- not doing all in his power to bring the greatest mass murderer in our history to justice.

I'm back, and I haven't actually been avoiding all news about the mess in Iraq: I read Salam Pax's book about his experience during the war.

I really can't imagine seeing my hometown bombed by an unwelcome power, knowing that it would occupy my country and set up power to serve its own ends.

Pax (not his real name) describes himself as "pragmatic" - now that the war damage is done, he wants to focus on what happens NEXT - he isn't very patient with people wanting to rehash why they were so gung ho to bomb him. He provides an interesting and very educational read. I recommend both his book, and his very popular blog.

*

It's difficult to come back to all the bad news. More than 11,000 civilian casualties (iraqbodycount.net). U.S. military casualties topped 800 while I was away: five additional soldiers died yesterday. ("US troops die in Samarra attack," bbc.com, 07/08/04). The handover of "sovereignty" came early (Handover advanced but problems remain, bbc.com, 06/28/04), but had to be performed in secret because security is so poor and the country is so unstable. (The "handover" in Iraq: like the large fly crawling on the CNN reporter's cheek, thismodernworld.com, 06/28/04).

I'll go back to commenting on clippings now. But I think I can safely observe that the route taken hasn't led Iraq to where the U.S. wanted it to go.

You must comply with the secret list you're not permitted to see, journalists: this from Reporters Without Borders: United States - Annual Report 2004:

Swedish journalist Emil Nikkah was prevented in August from doing a report for the Swedish TV station Kanal 5 because of US delay in issuing him with a press visa. He was born in Iran, which is designated by the US as a country supporting terrorism. The US embassy in Paris said visa requests involving such countries had to be dealt with in Washington and could take up to eight weeks to process. The list of suspect countries is secret.

The report also lists all of the foreign journalists who were harassed, had their accreditation threatened, were forced to sign agreements not to document anything they saw at Guantanamo, etc. Even foreign journalists attending video game trade shows were harassed! This indicates the zeal and xenophobia of certain law enforcement officials in keeping us "free."

Free... of journalism about video game conventions? I'm reasonably sure that isn't what the Homeland Security effort is actually about.

So Much for Democracy - Iraqis Plan for Introduction of Martial Law (commondreams.org & Johannesburg Star, 07/08/04) by Robert Fisk introduces us to a new way to approach democracy: having an unelected government declare martial law.

Iraq has introduced legislation allowing the Iraqi authorities to impose martial law; curfews; a ban on demonstrations; the restriction of movement; phone-tapping; the opening of mail; and the freezing of bank accounts.

If that isn't a sign of the lack of progress in appealing to the Iraqi public, I'm not sure what is.

Oh, and the legislation reintroduces the death penalty.

A bad sign: Yahoo! News - Pentagon Reportedly Aimed to Hold Detainees in Secret, (news.yahoo.com/LAtimes.com, 07/09/04). Because the Pentagon doesn't look bad enough yet:

Pentagon officials tentatively agreed during a high-level meeting last month to deny that process to some detainees and to keep their existence secret "for intelligence reasons," senior defense officials said Thursday.

[I've been traveling, on a sabbatical from the constant stream of bad news. A few more days of Geology and Anthropology study, and I'll return.]

The best article all week is Dan Froomkin's 'A Disconnect on the Al Qaeda Link'. (washingtonpost.com, 06/17/04) This article comments on and links to the Bush Administration's quotes linking Iraq and Al Queda in the past, and new statements denying that such statements were ever made.

Link after link after link of now denied Administration statements. It's just amazing.

*

After reading the reports summarized in that article, you might begin to get a tiny feeling that perhaps, just maybe, the corporate media in the U.S. can (periodically) exhibit a spine.

Maybe.

*

Diplomats & Military Commanders For Change.com have issued a statement insisting that the Bush Administration doesn't grasp the world's complex foreign policy realities, and so must be replaced. Comments from individuals are available at the BBC website, along with a list of the signatories and who appointed them. (bbc.com, 6/16/04) There are a few Republican appointees on the list.

*

Annan slams war crime exemption (bbc.com, 6/17/04):

The UN secretary general has urged the Security Council not to renew an exemption from prosecution for US troops on UN peacekeeping duties.

Kofi Annan said the exemption, passed for two years running and due to expire on 30 June, would discredit the UN's claim to represent the rule of law.

Some of the countries which have not ratified the International Criminal Court Treaty: Russia, Iran, Israel... and the U.S.

We've all seen how the U.S. has a poor reputation for how it treats its enemies, but have you seen how it treats its friends? Welcome to America (guardian.co.uk) is the story of British writer Elena Lappin (who is married to an American), who flew into LAX on a freelance assignment. Upon arrival she failed to notice the fine print on her visa waiver reflecting an unannounced Homeland Security policy change, which prohibited her from signing the visa waiver provided on the plan if she happened to "represent the foreign information media." For failing to notice this fine print and honestly declaring the purpose of her visit, she was handcuffed, interrogated, locked up for 26 hours in a jail with no privacy and no bed, searched bodily by female guards with rubber gloves...

Read it: your hair will stand on end at the thought of airport security completely losing their minds over WRITERS. (Realize that the described detention centers are popping up near an airport near you. The last line of the article, revealing a guard's mentality, tells you how bad things have become.)

This treatment, concluding with being marched through the airport handcuffed (again) for deportation, has happened to foreign journalists visiting the US recently 12 other times.

Reporters Without Borders, an international group working to promote the freedom of the press, sent a letter of protest and published an article with additional information, including a link to details of the other US expulsions.

For those of you who are interested, Mrs. Lappin points out that the countries of the world that require special 'journalist visas' include such glorious governments as those of "Cuba, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe"... and the United States.

Scary stuff: there's been quite a bit of discussion about the Bush Administration's internal memoranda discussing the options to avoid prosecution for war crimes. Lawyers Decided Bans on Torture Didn't Bind Bush (nytimes.com, 06/07/04) has a summary line that can make your hair stand on end:

"A team of administration lawyers concluded in a March 2003 legal memorandum that President Bush was not bound by either an international treaty prohibiting torture or by a federal antitorture law because he had the authority as commander in chief to approve any technique needed to protect the nation's security."

This is a separate memorandum from the one declaring that international law did not apply to anyone the US labeled as 'enemy combatants.'

As someone who works with lawyers, I sort of wish they'd come up with a title that reflected that this is a political and ideological position, rather than one maintained by lawyers generally. Lawyers are ALSO battling for detainees' rights, after all.

Memo Offered Justification for Use of Torture (washingtonpost.com, 06/08/04) provides additional rationalizations for torture, including the wacky idea of simply redefining torture.

In the Justice Department's view -- contained in a 50-page document signed by Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee and obtained by The Washington Post -- inflicting moderate or fleeting pain does not necessarily constitute torture. Torture, the memo says, "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."

Yes, our government has come up with a new way for us to win hearts and minds!

The consistent thread that runs through the memoranda and other spooky revelations is that this Administration considers itself to be above the law, with any barrier to absolute power quickly being disregarded, ESPECIALLY international laws and laws that apply to foreigners. Our democratic ideals and insistence that we're a good people should apparently stand, even in the presence of voluminous evidence that our leaders are sliding the other way.

*

In March, the Nation followed up a 2003 article called "In Torture We Trust" with extremely creepy info. The update also called 'In Torture We Trust' also has highly disturbing content:

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz famously proposed allowing US judges to issue "torture warrants" to prevent potentially catastrophic terrorist attacks. Writing in The New Republic last fall, Richard Posner, a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, expressed reservations about Dershowitz's proposal but argued that "if the stakes are high enough, torture is permissible. No one who doubts that this is the case should be in a position of responsibility."

If you've been sleeping too peacefully lately, you should read the entire article (4 web pages long), which includes discussions of how torture has been used by other governments.

*

I wonder how many of the unintelligible warnings we receive about potential terrorist attacks against the US ('the u.s. will be attacked hard,'!?!?) are acquired through torture.

I don't know how many of you ever read excerpts of Inquisition trials, but it does appear you can force just about anyone to confess to just about anything when they're in enough pain. One alleged 'witch' was tortured into saying that she dated the devil and that he'd given her the ability to fly by providing her with a box of fat with a stick in it. The testimony didn't save her life, but it certainly caused a lot of head scratching among her torturers. I suspect she just wasn't asked sufficiently leading questions. ("Say the U.S. will be attacked with __________, or we'll _______ your _____" is about how I imagine it.)

*

In other recent news, former chief US weapons inspector David Kay says it's "delusional" to believe that WMDs exist in Iraq (BBC, 06/05/04).

"We simply got it wrong," he said. "Iraq was a dangerous country, Saddam was an evil man and we are better off without him and all of that. But we were wrong in our estimation."

(I like the 'and all of that.')

And, if you missed it, the New York Times' public editor has performed a review of the Times' coverage of the WMD issue, and has found it lacking. Weapons of Mass Destruction? Or Mass Distraction? by Daniel O'Krent (nytimes.com, 05/30/04) and the Times' critique of articles whose assertions have never been proven provide hindsight about the paper's rush to judgment.

The articles have inspired a lot of commentary, some of which is so ideologically based that it would inspire laughter if we didn't have to live in the same country with the authors. None of the authors were this concise, but some retorts basically said 'by retracting unproveable self-interested exile myths and discredited news stories, you are surrendering to terrorists.'

For a very profane criticism of the Times, see Get Your War On, page 36. (When I say profane, I really mean profane. Yet rather accurate, and really funny. Suggested message from the NYT to its readers: "Why the hell are you still reading us? Does Judith Miller have to kill you herself?")

Katha Pollit notes in a Nation article called "Show & Tell at Abu Ghraib,", "...apparently even wartime atrocities are being outsourced now."

*

You may think that the prison abuse scandal in Iraq was the work of a few bad apples who didn't have adequate supervision. Human rights groups have noted a systemic pattern, however, and now some evidence suggests the White House planned for abuses to occur, and seeked to have a plan in place to avoid being responsible for them.

THE REACH OF WAR: GENEVA CONVENTIONS; Justice Memos Explained How to Skip Prisoner Rights by Neil Lewis (nytimes.com, 05/21/04, $) points out that the Justice Department have been laying plans to ignore international human rights law and American anti-torture laws since late 2001 and early 2002. These documents show the Administration was laying out specific legal loopholes, announced by fiat, for use in avoiding war crimes liability in American courts. Rather than suggesting that the U.S. not commit war crimes, the memoranda make recommendations for claiming that the crimes weren't committed on U.S. soil.

Apparently, Colin Powell provided a spirited argument for complying with the Geneva Conventions in order to have its protections apply to U.S. troops. It does not appear that he was listened to.

"Bad people have celebrations, too" - another chapter of winning hearts and minds

I'm not one who generally likes to watch others squirm, but watching the US revise it's denials about having bombed a wedding party now that a video of the wedding is circulating is just too much. Any tiny shred of credibility that the military may have thought it had is... merely the side effect of some medication their spokespeople are on.

How's this for an ineffectual effort? 'Wedding video' clouds US denials (bbc.com, 05/24/04)

"We still don't believe that there was a wedding or a wedding party going on when we hit in the early hours of the morning," the unidentified official was quoted as saying by Reuters news agency.

"Could there have been some sort of celebration going on earlier? Certainly."

(Emphasis mine.) This mistakenly implies that the world will be much more pleased knowing that a wedding party died in its sleep, rather than during an ongoing wedding celebration. Even this lame effort to pretend that this is what the military's earlier denials meant contradicts official statements, such as the one summarized here (In pictures: Iraq wedding video (bbc.com), stills from wedding video):

US forces maintain they attacked a safehouse for foreign fighters and, until the emergence of the video, insisted there was no evidence of a wedding at the location.

On Friday, US statements made it sound as if the scene was a battleground, and not a celebration with kids present:

[Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt] said earlier: "We sent a ground force in to that location. They were shot at. We returned fire." (Iraqis bury victims of US strike, (bbc.com, 05/20/04))

A little context explaining why the planes came back and bombed the site in the middle of the night might not fit in with the image being portrayed here.

Reporters who actually bothered to go to the scene (U.S. Says Iraq Attack Site Wasn't Wedding, news.yahoo.com 05/24/04) found evidence refuting just about everything stated by the US military:

"There was no evidence of a wedding: no decorations, no musical instruments found, no large quantities of food or leftover servings one would expect from a wedding celebration," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said Saturday. "There may have been some kind of celebration. Bad people have celebrations, too."

But video that APTN shot a day after the attack shows fragments of musical instruments, pots and pans and brightly colored beddings used for celebrations, scattered around the bombed out tent.

An AP reporter and photographer, who interviewed more than a dozen survivors a day after the bombing, were able to identify many of them on the wedding party video, which runs for several hours.

APTN also traveled to Mogr el-Deeb, 250 miles west of Ramadi, the day after the attack to film what the survivors said was the wedding site. A devastated building and remnants of the tent, pots and pans could be seen, along with bits of what appeared to be the remnants of ordnance, one of which bore the marking "ATU-35," similar to those on U.S. bombs.

A water tanker truck can be seen in both the video shot by APTN and the wedding tape obtained from a cousin of the groom.

On Monday, a senior coalition military officer said "we still don't believe there was a wedding going on" and that intelligence showed that only legitimate targets were attacked.

[Emphasis again mine.] Since reporters were able to immediately access the site and make photographic and video comparisons, clearly the military could have performed a similiar investigation of the allegations had it wanted to. Instead, it appears to be releasing conclusions of imaginary investigations performed entirely on a desk in a far-flung office, and then being called on it.

This is not a time when the US military needs to be lying and looking more wicked to the rest of the world.

Dan Froomkin's White House Briefing "Bush Speech: Was It Enough?" (washingtonpost.com, 05/25/04) provides an extensive compilation of links and quotes from major media commentary about Bush's Iraq war policy speech last night, many of which are fascinating. (And yes, it includes an interpretation of Bush's pronunciation of the prison central to the abuse scandal.) The link that's making the rounds most in my peer group: a graph indicating Bush's approval rating is at an all-time low (washingtonpost.com).

*

There are several very interesting quotes in another post article, primarily the perspectives of American troops in Iraq, including this one:

"I just think it's a lost cause," said Spec. Will Bromley, a gunner who sits inside the turret of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle and mans a 25mm cannon whose rounds can blast walls to pieces. "This has become harder than we thought. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein, that's one thing. Getting Iraqis to do what we want is another. It's like we want to give them McDonald's and they might not want McDonald's. They have to want it or we can't give it to them." -- from Soldiers' Doubts Build as Duties Shift, By Daniel Williams (washingtonpost.com, 05/24/04)

The article also details a raid performed by this particular unit, and the mishaps that occur along the way. Such details explain why the troops are demoralized, and why Iraqis who once were relieved at the US presence have grown eager for the US to depart.

The long, slippery slope

Many people who opposed pre-emptively attacking Iraq to prevent its use of Weapons of Mass Destruction against the U.S. insisted that such an attack would be an ugly, drawn out process which could not possibly worth the inevitably high cost in human life.

After Bush declared the end of major combat and cut all the soldiers' combat pay accordingly, much of the press announced that the peaceniks were wrong, that the war was a cakewalk, that the war's (ever-changing) goals would all be shortly accomplished, and that the lovefest between the Iraqi people and democracy would begin immediately.

Apparently, some of the people doing the announcing had enjoyed their 5-martini lunches a little too early. Every day the news of more death, more anger, and less hope for order and peace gets worse. Bombing the way to peace as a strategy is exposed daily as a delusion. Those who prematurely predicted the cakewalk, not being the type prone to retrospective strategic analyses, have decided that the same approach that got us into our current situation is the best one to using moving forward: more force, 'staying the course," and odd rhetoric about how we can't stop what we're doing now.

Nothing has been learned.

And we can't announce that the peaceniks were right, can we?

*

Punishment and Amusement: Documents Indicate 3 Photos Were Not Staged for Interrogation, by Scott Higham and Joe Stephens (washingtonpost.com, 05/22/04) reveal additional details of the darkest side of occupation. Most hair-raising quote from a soldier at the prison:

"The Christian in me says it's wrong, but the corrections officer in me says, 'I love to make a grown man piss himself.' "

This Post article observes that documents about the prison abuses reveal that horrors were committed against Iraqis for interrogation purposes, and others were committed solely for the entertainment of the jailers. It also provides additional details about how soldier Joseph Darby acquired the photos and acted to try to stop the abuse.

This brings us to When Joseph Comes Marching Home, by Hanna Rosin (washingtonpost.com, 05/17/04), what may be the creepiest article about how one man's effort to stop the war crimes has cost a soldier's family their peace (and possibly their safety). The unguarded commentary from Darby's small home town reveals some of the biases which have complicated the American people's reaction to the revelations of torture and murder at Abu Ghraib. The most interesting suggestion to me is the idea that REPORTING a year of abuse is causing Iraqis to hate us, not the abuse itself . That's a disconnect I can't fathom -- the Iraqis who have been released have been telling their peers for a long time.

It is also deeply disturbing that one resident believes that reporting the atrocities was 'turning against your fellow man' -- yet somehow, committing atrocities isn't. I had to reread it to absorb that the speaker doesn't believe that Iraqis are 'fellow men.'

*

Those of our 'fellow men' who happen to have been caught committing atrocities are being tried for their crimes -- and are getting off with very light punishments. Within the military world, which has a unique perspective, losing your military career for killing someone is a big deal. Outside the military world, it looks more like a cover up. In Military Justice Is Put On Trial In Iraq Abuse Scandal by Vanessa Blum (law.com, 05/18/04, subscription required), the Pentagon's effort to make a show of their orderly justice system suggests that they'll have a hard time understanding what outside expectations would lead to.

Just before reading this, I had pointed out that Americans who had murdered civilians for sport in Vietnam and had been caught on film managed to avoid punishment despite national outcry, so it is difficult to point to a model of military justice which isn't an oxymoron. This article points to the sorry statistics associated with the perpetrators of the My Lai massacre, which does not provide hope for actual justice in the current situation.

*

It's amazing to me that the press has only recently taken to observing that American soldiers aren't infallible. Reuters' reporters are among those captured and abused at US-run prisons (bbc.com, 05/18/04). The deaths of several reporters at the hands of the US military have resulted in formal complaints by the media to the military, but no acknowledgement that the 'code of conduct' - the rules under which U.S. soldiers can shoot just about anyone for any reason - can result in murder.

Even as the bodies of more than 40 members of a wedding party killed by the US are being laid to rest, the US insists that it has 'intelligence' that proves it bombed the right house. (bbc.com, 05/20/04) No number of bodies or witnesses can bring the military to look at the evidence before it, to acknowledge that such evidence exists, OR (perhaps most importantly) to revise its approach of bombing large areas to kill suspects whose whereabouts are not known. Not even when there is video of the aftermath, and witnesses who happen to be Iraqi officials:

Video gathered in the western town of Ramadi by Associated Press Television News showed bloody bodies piled into a truck. The bodies included children, one of whom was decapitated, AP reported. Iraqi witnesses interviewed in the video said revelers at a wedding had been celebrating by shooting guns in the air before they came under fire.

The military presented a sharply different account of events, with a news release from U.S. Central Command and a Defense Department official in Washington saying "coalition forces" had attacked a suspected location of foreign fighters.[italics mine]

...Lt. Col. Ziyad Jbouri, a deputy police chief in Ramadi, told the AP that Wednesday's assault killed between 42 and 45 people, including 15 children and 10 women. Salah Ani, a doctor who works at a hospital in Ramadi, told the news service that the death toll was 45. --- from 40 Reported Killed in U.S. Attack in Western Iraq: American Officials Dispute Iraqi Claims That Aircraft Hit Wedding Party, by Thomas E. Ricks and Mark Stencel (washingtonpost.com, 05/19/04)

The Red Cross has plainly stated that "The excessive use of force violates international human rights." Yet, the US is using its unmatched brute force to argue for the rule of law, while violating the rule of law.

*

"50-100 Iraqis died in U.S. custody last year" (Torturing Hearts and Minds, by Marjorie Cohn, truthout.org, 05/04/04).

By the way: when was the last time you heard about the state of the Guantanamo Bay detainees?

*

New images of soldiers posing happily with the bodies of dead Iraqis (cnn.com) aren't generating the level of outrage one might expect in US papers who condemned the showing of live US POWs on TV. (fair.org). Meanwhile, in an unfortunate error of timing:

[General Ricardo Sanchez] warned senators that "this awful episode at Abu Ghraib must not allow us to get distracted" from the war against insurgents in Iraq.

"The honor and value systems of our armed forces are solid and the bedrock of what makes us the best in the world," Sanchez said. "There has been no catastrophic failure, and America's armed forces will never compromise their honor." -- General: No pattern of abuse at prisons [but] New Abu Ghraib images involve body, CNN, 05/20/04

(More at CIA investigates death of three detainees, CNN, 05/20/04.)

*

Last thought for the day, from a title of an article that says it all: US demands war crimes immunity: The US believes 'malicious cases' could be brought against its soldiers. (bbc.com, 05/21/04).

Timing is everything.

Try to wrap your brain around this one: according to a discussion I heard on the radio, the torture, abuse, and killing of hundreds of Iraqi civilians, most of whom were mistakenly arrested by the U.S., should now be dismissed because of the brutal killing of one American done in revenge for the aforementioned abuse, which shows that all those mistakenly arrested Iraqis have peers who are terrible people.

Again: if your people do something terrible to other people, and then some of the other people take revenge on your people for that terrible thing, that makes THEM bad.

But YOU are not bad for starting the cycle of violence by doing something terrible to them.

This was delivered by a man on the radio in all seriousness, couched in fancier words.

I feel a headache coming on...

Last item for this entry: "80% in Iraq Distrust Occupation Authority: Results of Poll, Taken Before Prison Scandal Came to Light, Worry U.S. Officials, from today's Washington Post. The long list of negative opinions of the US aren't surprising. The Pentagon's complete denial of reality is, however. See their fairyland quotes late in the article.

Winning hearts and minds by torturing innocent civilians

This from the Red Cross report which has caused such a media frenzy: 70 to 90 percent of persons arrested in Iraq were arrested BY MISTAKE. ("Red Cross report describes systematic U.S. abuse in Iraq," 05/10/04, AP/sfgate.com).

Think about that. Much of last year, the Red Cross was trying to call attention to abuses at prisons the US set up for its detainees, and 70 to 90 percent of those people should never have been detained.

There's more:

The agency said arrests allegedly tended to follow a pattern.

"Arresting authorities entered houses usually after dark, breaking down doors, waking up residents roughly, yelling orders, forcing family members into one room under military guard while searching the rest of the house and further breaking doors, cabinets and other property," the report said.

"Sometimes they arrested all adult males present in a house, including elderly, handicapped or sick people," it said. "Treatment often included pushing people around, insulting, taking aim with rifles, punching and kicking and striking with rifles."

It said some coalition military intelligence officers estimated "between 70 percent and 90 percent of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake....

This is another article best read in its entirety, so go.

*

Lynndie England, the female soldier grinning in some of the photographs of humiliated Iraqi prisoners which are at the center of international outcry, has stated in interviews that she was 'just following orders.' (BBC, 05/12/04). Perhaps this is why she is smiling so widely in the photographs? She claims that a superior officer may have encouraged the humiliations as part of a psyops operation. The fact that these and other photos were circulating widely among US soldiers for entertainment doesn't entirely support this theory, however.

While 'just following orders' has never excused war crime behavior for nationals of other countries, at least one of my colleagues believes this particular soldier, on the basis that she 'doesn't seem very bright.' (My colleague further notes that 19 year olds don't know anything, which is directly related to why so many of them wind up in the militaries of all nations... Which doesn't make the situation better, certainly.)

Her family has helped catapult Ms. England into the spotlight, by granting interviews in which they insist that England does represent the values of 'the American soldier,' (video) (BBC, 05/12/04), contrary to President Bush's assertions to the contrary. They also appear to think that 'anything' they daughter was told to do to make the captives cooperate is acceptable.

Read the previous item about how most of the people in captivity should not have been arrested again, please.

*

A short news item promoted by CBS news suggests that the evil depicted in the photographs (such as Ms. England's) is not the soldiers' fault at all, but merely the natural psychological result of being in 'an evil situation.' To support this theory, they rely upon the Stanford Prison Experiment (prisonexp.org). However, they appear to oversimplify the experiment.

The experiment's great website provides much more information about this 1971 project and its disturbing results. A small group of volunteers were paid a nominal sum to be screened for 'normalcy' and then randomly assigned the role of a prisoner or prison guard in a prison simulation in a Stanford basement. The two week study had to be cancelled after the 6th day, when several of the guards had become dangerously sadistic and the prisoners were showing signs of deteriorating mental health.

While CBS may conclude that 'everyone' turns evil in an 'evil environment,' the study actually demonstrated that the guards fell into one of three distinct behaviors, and only SOME of them became sadistic when given limitless power over others. That is an important point. Not all of the US military police in Iraq are abusing prisoners, so far as we can tell at the moment. So suggesting that the environment would turn 'everyone' evil doesn't really explain why all the other guards weren't doing the same thing.

If CBS concludes that the US prisons in Iraq are inherently 'evil,' that should also be examined: if war crimes are the natural result of detention centers, detention centers must not be created. If the abuse occurs because it is policy, that policy should end. If it is a failure of leadership, those leaders must be replaced. And if it is a policy of racism and oppression based on the occupation of a foreign nation with different customs and beliefs, the occupation MUST end.

*

P.S. I see that Slate now has an item called The Stanford Prison Experiment doesn't explain Abu Ghraib, by William Saletan (slate.msn.com, 05/12/04), which raises additional points negating the comparison.

*

The Executive summary of Article 15-6 investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba (msnbc.msn.com) came out on May 4, 2004, but no one has mentioned that female Iraqi detainees were raped in the mass media summaries of the scandal.

It is surely being mentioned overseas.

Read the findings of fact, section 6, which details the abuses, including:

b. (S) Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees...

k. (S) A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;...

See also Annexes 25 & 26, which detail chemical attacks, sodomy, and other abuses.

*

"New abuse photos are 'even worse'" ( BBC 05/12/04) reveals that the Pentagon has photographs depicting more despicable acts by US soldiers than have yet been released. Senators who have viewed them claim they are many times worse than those previously released. (See also Lawmakers Are Stunned By New Images of Abuse, by Charles Babington (washingtonpost.com, 05/13/04 (tomorrow's paper), in which U.S. lawmakers observe that there are more U.S. troop boots in the photographs than there are persons who have been accused of wrongdoing, and more people must have been involved in these acts).

*

The beheading of Nicholas Berg has been condemned by Bush as showing the true nature of the resistance to US forces, though the photographs of US forces tormenting Iraqi captives are NOT representative of their nature.

Oh, I see.

*

U.S. media are not broadcasting video of the beheading of Nicholas Berg. (BBC 05/12/04) It has been available in Arab media, where the images of the US tormenting hundreds of captives is still reverberating, and condemnation for the beheading is mixed with a lack of surprise, considering how much evil has recently been visited upon the people of Iraq in recent times. (same)

Since the Arab world gets completely different & much more graphic coverage of events there than we do, it isn't entirely surprising that the soft-news western expectation that the Arabs equate one beheading with the humiliation of hundreds and deaths of thousands aren't quite being met. It just may not be possible for such an equation to be made. At least, not by anyone who believes that all lives are of equal value, regardless of nationality.

System Failure

In the past few days I've been in conversation with several people about the abuses of prisoners and civilians in Iraq, the prison system in the U.S., the universally unfair application of the death penalty, and police violence in SF neighborhoods.

The previously posted link to the Washington Post about how we abstract the world to reaffirm our own goodness made me realize that the same glossy shine is put on unfair systems here at home by our fellow citizens. As my partner observed, the acquittal of the officers in the Rodney King beating had to be more about what people wanted to believe about our legal system than about the abundant evidence provided.

I can't figure out how to make people see that these problems are structural, however. Especially with fear mongers manipulating the media.

*

On May 7th, the Washington Post reported that "the International Red Cross said Friday it had warned U.S. officials of abuse of prisoners in Iraq more than a year ago" (washingtonpost.com). A report by the ICRC has been leaked to the press, describing the humiliation of naked prisoners in US custody, and worse:

The newspaper said that the 24-page report described prisoners kept naked in total darkness in empty cells at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison and male prisoners forced to parade around in women's underwear. Coalition forces also fired on unarmed prisoners from watchtowers, killing some of them.

In another incident, nine men were arrested in Basra and beaten severely, leading to one death, it added.

The abuses were reported in several locations, not just the prison being referenced in most U.S. media. Amnesty International had also warned repeatedly of the abuses by US soldiers. (05/08/04, washingtonpost.com).

Of course, in this election year, there are a few people who believe that the inconvenient truth that our soldiers are violating the Geneva Conventions is just a strange attempt to discredit an already discredited war!! Kurtz's 05/07/04 Media Notes column describes this, along with summaries of the outrage about how damaging these actions - not merely the release of them - are to the United State's credibility. (washingtonpost.com) Kurtz' quotes American news sources pointing out that celebrating the closure of Saddam Hussein's torture chambers isn't very compelling in the light of what the US is now using those same chambers for. (Read this one through and see the commentary on Rush Limbaugh's distressing justification for all of these acts - that the soldiers were just having FUN!?!? As if promoting the idea that torture is recreation is going to persuade the world that the US is righteous! Yipes!)

While families of some of the soldiers photographed humiliating prisoners devise strange excuses for their actions (washingtonpost.com 05/05/04), and the maximum sentence for the first soldier to be tried for these crimes has been capped at one year (washingtonpost.com 05/10/04), no substantive changes appear on the horizon. A few soldiers in the photos are being charged, (including Lynndie England (bbc.com), whose family insists her evil peers forced her to pose and smile so widely in many of the infamous images), but no one seems alarmed that CDs filled with images depicting these abuses were circulating widely among soldiers for entertainment. The fundamental aspects of the current bad situation aren't up for revision any time soon. The fact that young people are in a mentally unhealthy situation and are engaging in appalling crimes against human beings as a result is not being examined. There is a complete denial that occupying a foreign country using brute force provides a framework that is prone to abuse.

"We were dealing here with a broad pattern, not individual acts. There was a pattern and a system," said the ICRC's operations director Pierre Kraehenbuehl. (bbc.com 05/08/04) There, someone said it: there is a system in place that leads to this. Limitless power over defenseless foreign captives in the hands of young soldiers trained to shoot first and ask questions later. An administration that creates law-free enclaves in which its personnel can act with impunity. Simplistic world views in which people are either good, or 'evil doers' who deserve no recognition under the law -- unless they are American. The knowledge that anything the US can do by force goes, and there's nothing the rest of the world can do to stop it.

There is the problem. Not a few bad apples, but a system that is fundamentally rotten.

Full disclosure: liberation sometimes involves the torture and humiliation of the liberatees

I'm not sure why it's taken such a long time for the story to break, but now the scandal over the systemic abuses of Iraqis, our erstwhile liberatees, is in full swing. Hundreds of additional photographs (beyond those long displayed at thememoryhole.org) of Iraqi prisoners being humiliated, forced to simulate sex acts, or in other degrading positions are circulating, made by and for the entertainment of military personnel, and they have reached the press.

There are many good articles on the topic, but the best has to be A Wretched New Picture Of America
Photos From Iraq Prison Show We Are Our Own Worst Enemy, By Philip Kennicott in the Washington Post. The idea that Americans wish to take credit for all good in the world, but insist all evil is done by rogue elements is... completely true. This is a fabulous article - if you read one opinion this week, well, you're already reading mine, but go here to read a second one.

Another great article on the same theme is Willing Torturers, by Anne Applebaum. (also washingtonpost.com) Applebaum says the belief that atrocities are extraordinarily unusual events which occur due to the flaw in one lone national character (never ours) are based on pure fantasy.

There are also several very informative excerpts from international news sources at Morley's compilation of world viewpoints (washingtonpost.com), including:

"This is the face of freedom. The face of righteousness," said columnist Firas Atraqchi, a Canadian-Iraqi journalist for Islam Online.

"Next time someone asks you the most idiotic of questions -- 'why do they hate us' -- ask them to see the pictures in question. Next time someone asks you how Iraqis could have cut US and South African mercenaries to pieces, ask them to see the pictures in question. Next time someone asks you why Iraqis are taking up arms, tell them to shut up."

(If you're not checking in with Morley's compilations for a reality check against our domestic news sources routinely, start now.)