Sunday, May 09, 2004
'Who is this parade for anyway?': One of those ‘Why didn’t I think of that?’ type of stories. Charlie Sennott interviews Spanish troops returning from Iraq to staged welcome-home parades by the government. The troops aren’t too proud of their government's decision. "America's reason for going to war was cynical," said one soldier. "But when you are there on the ground, you see the poverty and people living in mud houses next to Saddam's palaces, [and] the work we were doing seems justified. It had valor."...
‘There are a lot more photographs and videos that exist’: It obviously wasn’t all valor. Jules Crittendon, Philip G. Zimbardo and the NYT all have pieces this morning on the prison tortures in Iraq, taking the there’s-depravity-everywhere and ill-trained angles. Agreed. But there’s something else at work here, to wit: The photos. Why were they taking them? Why would depraved people committing heinous crimes take incriminating photos of themselves? If we get answers to those questions, we’ll probably find out how far up this goes. I strongly suspect, as do others, the photos were taken for others (i.e. future prisoners) to see. This smacks of a deliberate, albeit ill thought out, interrogation strategy. ...
The Herald, yesterday, reported on more shocking evidence yet to come: “The unreleased images show American soldiers beating one prisoner almost to death, apparently raping a female prisoner, acting inappropriately with a dead body, and taping Iraqi guards raping young boys, according to NBC News.” ... Again: The photos. The videos. Why? ...
Update -- OK, here we go. WaPo now reports how the higher-ups at the Pentagon approved "a legal way to jack up the pressure'' during interrogations. No, they didn't approve Abu Ghraib-style torture. I doubt any evidence will emerge implicating those at the White House and Pentagon. This is not what they wanted. But there was a tone set that filtered down to the grunts. At what point did someone misconstrue/abuse the orders? ... The string to pull is the photos. Question to be asked of those snapping the photos: Who did you give these to?
‘There are a lot more photographs and videos that exist’: It obviously wasn’t all valor. Jules Crittendon, Philip G. Zimbardo and the NYT all have pieces this morning on the prison tortures in Iraq, taking the there’s-depravity-everywhere and ill-trained angles. Agreed. But there’s something else at work here, to wit: The photos. Why were they taking them? Why would depraved people committing heinous crimes take incriminating photos of themselves? If we get answers to those questions, we’ll probably find out how far up this goes. I strongly suspect, as do others, the photos were taken for others (i.e. future prisoners) to see. This smacks of a deliberate, albeit ill thought out, interrogation strategy. ...
The Herald, yesterday, reported on more shocking evidence yet to come: “The unreleased images show American soldiers beating one prisoner almost to death, apparently raping a female prisoner, acting inappropriately with a dead body, and taping Iraqi guards raping young boys, according to NBC News.” ... Again: The photos. The videos. Why? ...
Update -- OK, here we go. WaPo now reports how the higher-ups at the Pentagon approved "a legal way to jack up the pressure'' during interrogations. No, they didn't approve Abu Ghraib-style torture. I doubt any evidence will emerge implicating those at the White House and Pentagon. This is not what they wanted. But there was a tone set that filtered down to the grunts. At what point did someone misconstrue/abuse the orders? ... The string to pull is the photos. Question to be asked of those snapping the photos: Who did you give these to?
