prison
exactly. Two of the soldiers being served up were both prison guards in civilian life. They "had no experience" in this environment? They were put in charge precisely because they had the experience and temperament that would allow for plausible deniability.
I don't agree with punishing ONLY these foot soldiers--even though I think they are still personally responsible for reprehensible acts. Remember, some people refused, or said, (as one guy did in a moment of bureaucratic inspiration when asked to strip naked some prisoners), that they'd "have to have the paperwork on that. . ." before they could do anything (and thus, wound up doing nothing--a sweet move if there ever was one.)
We STILL have not heard from or about the mysterious "military intelligence" operatives and "civilian contractor" interrogators, who are reported to have worn non-descript civilian wear, without names, titles or affiliations.
And we probably won't, because the trial of these young, sadistic, wayward and poor will provide such a carnival of white trash sadness, dysfunction and pornography that the country will stay distracted and horrified.
And will not even ask what horrors routinely take place in prisons in this country. Granted they're not supposed to be "nice" places, but shouldn't they make a more concerted attempt to actively fight the abuses outlined in the article Sally has posted?
make that, as with anything concerning the degradations in prisons here or in Iraq, ". . .the country will stay distracted and horrified" and TITILLATED.
I'm convinced that these sadistic acts were policy, and agree that televised punishment of those who implemented the policies is meant to distract the public from those who established the policy. We can start with John "we don't need no Consitution in Gitmo" Ashcroft.
yes, definitely, they were policy.
even the Army Times now is calling for rumsfeld's resignation, though that won't ever happen. even if he did leave, I think they'd just keep him around behind the scenes, put a convincing place-holder in his former job, and then he'd be able to keep on keepin' on, now without oversight.
|
- sally mckay 5-09-2004 10:48 pm
exactly. Two of the soldiers being served up were both prison guards in civilian life. They "had no experience" in this environment? They were put in charge precisely because they had the experience and temperament that would allow for plausible deniability.
I don't agree with punishing ONLY these foot soldiers--even though I think they are still personally responsible for reprehensible acts. Remember, some people refused, or said, (as one guy did in a moment of bureaucratic inspiration when asked to strip naked some prisoners), that they'd "have to have the paperwork on that. . ." before they could do anything (and thus, wound up doing nothing--a sweet move if there ever was one.)
We STILL have not heard from or about the mysterious "military intelligence" operatives and "civilian contractor" interrogators, who are reported to have worn non-descript civilian wear, without names, titles or affiliations.
And we probably won't, because the trial of these young, sadistic, wayward and poor will provide such a carnival of white trash sadness, dysfunction and pornography that the country will stay distracted and horrified.
And will not even ask what horrors routinely take place in prisons in this country. Granted they're not supposed to be "nice" places, but shouldn't they make a more concerted attempt to actively fight the abuses outlined in the article Sally has posted?
- bunny (guest) 5-10-2004 9:56 pm [add a comment]
make that, as with anything concerning the degradations in prisons here or in Iraq, ". . .the country will stay distracted and horrified" and TITILLATED.
- bunny (guest) 5-10-2004 10:27 pm [add a comment]
I'm convinced that these sadistic acts were policy, and agree that televised punishment of those who implemented the policies is meant to distract the public from those who established the policy. We can start with John "we don't need no Consitution in Gitmo" Ashcroft.
- mark 5-11-2004 3:35 am [add a comment]
yes, definitely, they were policy.
even the Army Times now is calling for rumsfeld's resignation, though that won't ever happen. even if he did leave, I think they'd just keep him around behind the scenes, put a convincing place-holder in his former job, and then he'd be able to keep on keepin' on, now without oversight.
- bunny (guest) 5-11-2004 7:08 am [add a comment] [edit]