Is it just me, or does most of the "outrage" over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners look almost completely feigned? From every side of the political spectrum, from reporters to politicians to bloggers, everyone acts shocked and appalled. Am I alone in thinking that, although the abuse shouldn't have happened, it's just not that big of a deal?
I mean, some pictures were taken of unclothed prisoners, and some prisoners were threatened with mild forms of torture. They weren't actually tortured, were they? Maybe I just haven't been following the story closely enough. I've heard some reports that some prisoners were murdered, but are those incidents related to the photos currently circulating, or are they completely different?
Look, prisons aren't nice places to be. Even prisons here in America are far more brutal than they should be, in all the wrong ways. Prison shouldn't be pleasant, but prisoners shouldn't be subject to rape and torture by as a matter of course, either. As I've written before, other forms of punishment would probably be cheaper, more humane, and more effective than prison. The whole prison paradigm needs to be re-examined, in my opinion. If you think the abuse in Iraq is unusual or outstanding, you need to get more familiar with prisons in general, in America and elsewhere. The only interesting feature here is that these idiots took pictures of their crimes.
I'm going to save my outrage for more important matters. This is small potatoes, not a matter for the President or his cabinet to worry about. Let the system work, or even better, revamp the system. In my opinion, this just isn't news; it's a high-profile example of a widespread, low-level problem.
Update:
Some commenters think I'm out of line here, but c'mon -- the Pentagon issued a report about these incidents in January. The only reason this is news now is because the media is hyping it. We need to get these guys and punish them, but the public humilation and self-flagellation by the President and Rumsfeld et al is just playing into the hands of the anti-Americans. It should have been enough for some colonel to say "we're aware of the situation, it's terrible, and we're dealing with it in the standard fashion."
I agree, Michael. While the things shouldn't have been done, they are not the most atrocious things going on in the world today. They don't even make the top 10. They do, however, offer a nice little soft spot for critics of America to pound on. Buckle up and ride it out. We'll be hearing about it for awhile.
I seriously hope this post was to jerk people's chains, and not to make a serious point. If hooking a wire to an inmate's genitals and telling him he'll be electrocuted if he steps down doesn't count as torture, what does?
Michael,
It just doesn't surprise me in the least that you think the abuse of Iaqi prisoners is no big deal.
Sure it's a big deal for several reasons. By the rules of reciprocity, there is a certain amount of abuse and torture that the other side will be justified in inflicting on any US prisoners they get. I think that's a big deal. It also takes the edge off our entire moral case that we need to get out of the middle ages in terms of how we treat each other. One of the major uncovered reasons why this stinks is that it shows a major breakdown in a key protection built into the US military, the obligation of every soldier to refuse an illegal order. If that breaks down, it makes a military coup merely extremely hard instead of impossible.
Think, would you?
All: Uh, I said it was bad, didn't I? I never said it was ok. I just said that it's not as big a deal as people are making of it, and it's not. It's just high profile, manufactured by the media mostly. Sure, it should be punished and prevented in the future, but that issue is way bigger than this one incident.
Michael, I agree with your assesment. Just today, I listened to a guy who had several people on his radio show. He interviewed each one, asking if "Rummy" should be fired and Bush not re-elected over this one issue of war atrocities. All were allowed to give their opinions, and all said Bush should NOT be re-elected based on his indirect responsibility.
Each respondant also (naturally) said John Kerry should be elected, and not Bush, because Bush was responsible for these war atrocities. The host then played a clip of John Kerry's testimony years back where he voluntarily admitted comitting war atrocities against the Vietnamese.
In light of the audio clip, these same guests now could not explain how Bush should be shafted and Kerry elected.
Partisan frenzy on this issue? You betcha. Do they really care about the few that were mistreated (and it was a few, by a few)? No way. It's election year partisan politics for sure.
Although this is serious, and I think Bush was right for saying what he said, this doesn't invalidate anything. It shouldn't have been done. Those who did it should be dealt with appropriately. Several military and public leaders need to step forward, condemn what happened, and assure everyone that it was an aberration and that it won't happen again. Then they need to make sure it doesn't.
It's big, and it SHOULD make the headlines. For a day or two. Many are using it as an opportunity to claim that everything we've done has been sold out by this, and that simply isn't even close to true.
If we deal with this appropriately, it will illustrate exactly why we're better than so many of those who stand against us.
You have really disappointed me here, Michael. You are usually better thought out than this post, which I can only assume is a troll for traffic.
No big deal, huh? It doesn't surprise me that you and Rush would think so. And I would add to the commenters here that we not only have the problems of prisoners tortured, but the 25 other some odd deaths in Iraq and Guantanamo (sp?) that are being investigated, two of which have already been ruled homicides, I believe.
Even if you don't give a flying flop about the people who have been abused or murdered, you should care about the wide-reaching implications of this debacle on the war on terror. This is exactly the kind of isht that will be used to recruit fanatics. Our senior level people need to be keenly aware of this and work to deal with it.
Once again, I am sincerely disappointed in you, Michael.
Dast: I'm sorry I didn't toe the line you expected. I'm disappointed in you for not realizing that when I troll for traffic I usually do it in a pretty obvious way.
From what I've read, there are 2-3 deaths to be investigated, not 25, but you may be right. Even that is a matter for the military to discuss at a fairly low level.
I don't see how any of this makes you think I don't "care" about the people who were abused and possibly murdered. Lots of people get murdered all the time, should the President deal with every one? After Waco, President Clinton just shrugged and passed the buck to Reno, who mostly ignored it. That was a much bigger story than this, and arguably led to OKC bombing.
Michael,
I'm WITH you on this one. While I don't agree with out right torture, these guys are prisoners because they were fighting AGAINST us!!! If given the chance, they probably would have killed as many Americans as possible. But I guess that must be okay to everyone who was angry with your post.
What about all the Americans that HAVE been killed recently? I don't hear any Iraqi officials apologizing.
And to TM, do you think the Iraqis needed this as an excuse to torture Americans? I think they probably feel justified in their toturing regardless of whether or not we are guilty of it.
Petra: Again, I wasn't saying the way these prisoners were treated was ok. We don't want to be like our enemies, and their own atrocious actions don't justify our own.
No, I know that. I don't think it was okay either. After all, we are all humans and should treat EVERYONE like we would want to be treated (although I imagine a little harder to live by in a warzone). Still, they are prisoners of war and they are our "enemy." While I don't condone the act, I can't see why everyone is getting so bent out of shape about it. At least the prisoners are still alive. Some of our military hasn't been so lucky.
Inmates rape each other all the time in American prisons, and no one seems to care. Do Iraqi terrorists deserve better treatment than American criminals?
Here's something for the "gee whiz, what's a little torture and humiliation between friends" crowd to chew on. If I had encountered such an outrageous story two weeks ago, I probably would have fisked it. Now, thanks to these rogue M.P.s, the best I can say now is "Gee, this story's a bunch of crap, I think ... um, I mean, I hope..."
X: I never said the issue wasn't hurting us in the PR sphere, but it's hurting us more because of how we're dealing with it.
As I said on my own blog:
These are what the interrogation rules should be:
1. No permanent physical harm.
2. See above.
Police here play psychological games with suspects; shouldn't they be able to do at least as much in a freaking war zone? Obviously if people died or were permanently harmed that's bad, but the psychological stuff is par for the course. People are having a hissy fit because it LOOKS bad not because it IS bad. We're just giving old Osama more reason to think us weak.
Oops, the link didn't work on my post above. Here is my URL:
http://antidisestablishmentarianismesque.blogspot.com