Posted by DeLong at September 21, 2004 07:58 AM | TrackBackDiscourse.net: Don't Forget: War crimes? Criminal activity? Criminal neglect? Major cover-up? Any of these is enough to demonstrate the moral unfitness to govern of the current lot.
TalkLeft—Female Abu Ghraib Prisoner Speaks Out: Huda Alazawi was one of the few females imprisoned at Abu Ghraib in Iraq. She was a wealthy businesswoman, blackmailed by a lowlife informant who falsely dropped a dime on her and her brothers, claiming they were supporters of the Iraqi resistance after she refused to meet his demand for money. Recently released after several months at Abu Ghraib, she recounted her ordeal to The Guardian.
Alazawi was imprisoned with two of her brothers and a sister. One brother was brutally sexually assaulted —hours later he was thrown at her and her sister’s feet, bleeding from his head, knees and between his legs. He was dead.
The torture, abuse and degradation of Alazawi and other prisoners went on for months. She was able to document some of the abuse in a Koran. Other aspects of her report match those of other prisoners.
A few bad apples? No way.
No, it's not just a few bad apples. Our military has a serious problem here, as does the civilian side of the "war on terror". It's a source of alarm how often my fellow Kerry supporters talk about how our local military forces are the ones who really have a handle on Iraq.
From today's LA Times story "U.S. Probing Alleged Abuse of Afghans":
"American military investigators have opened a criminal probe into allegations of murder and torture involving an 18-year-old Afghan army recruit who died while in U.S. custody last year. . . . The dead soldier, identified as Jamal Naseer, a member of the Afghan Army III Corps, was severely beaten over a span of at least two weeks, according to a report prepared for the Afghan attorney general. A witness described his battered corpse as being 'green and black' with bruises. Alleged American mistreatment of the detainees included repeated beatings, immersion in cold water, electric shocks, being hung upside down and toenails being torn off, according to Afghan investigators and an internal memorandum prepared by a United Nations delegation that interviewed the surviving soldiers."
This was the kicker:
"Pare said the American officers left, then one returned and offered personal condolences. He said the American told him there had been a misunderstanding. 'They told me that they respected my religion and they asked for forgiveness in mistreating us,' Pare told Afghan investigators."
Posted by: No Preference at September 21, 2004 08:33 AMHand these bastards over to an international tribunal. Please?
Posted by: Randolph Fritz at September 21, 2004 08:59 AMLook! It's Dan Rather!
Posted by: Typical Troll at September 21, 2004 09:40 AMWhile I am inclined to believe this report, I really wish a more reputable outlet would pick this up and run with it. Sadly, the Guardian is too easily dismissed.
Posted by: Unseelie at September 21, 2004 10:42 AMNice troll. Now go back under your bridge.
Posted by: Barry at September 21, 2004 10:44 AM"I really wish a more reputable outlet would pick this up and run with it. Sadly, the Guardian is too easily dismissed."
That's too bad. The Guardian has been more accurate about a lot of things, including Iraqi WMD, than the NY Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal.
Posted by: No Preference at September 21, 2004 10:55 AMDump Dumb !
Posted by: Hans Suter at September 21, 2004 11:26 AMI go with the few bad apples view. The apples are named Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz ...
Posted by: Disgusted at September 21, 2004 01:50 PMIt starts at the top and filters down like trickle down economics. Oh well, at least I havent been arrested yet. Scum.
Posted by: AllenM at September 21, 2004 03:14 PMThis entry has the wrong title. The correct headline should be:
"Why it no longer infringes on Godwin's law to compare the Bush junta with Hitler"
Posted by: ogmb at September 21, 2004 03:47 PMI'm not saying that I have a problem with Guardian... most of the time I think they're right on. However, they have a rep as a left leaning media outlet, which makes it too easy for them to be dismissed by others.
Why aren't the major media outlets shouting this from the rooftops? Is the GOP hate machine that scary?
Posted by: Unseelie at September 21, 2004 04:57 PMA second Bush term will bring these tactics home for domestic State harassment and terrorism of his political enemies.
We're in danger.
Posted by: John Thullen at September 21, 2004 04:59 PMAmericans are stupid enough to give Bush another term. Also, we all know that John Thullen speaks the truth when he says "We're in danger". Be ready. There's a life after the election. It could be more violent than most expect. Be ready.
Posted by: vaughn1111 at September 21, 2004 05:12 PMI don't even see how the "bad apple" explanation is an excuse. How did ALL the bad apples COINCIDENTALLY wind up at Abu Ghraib, in the EXACT same job of interrogation?
Fencepost turtles.
Posted by: Dragonchild at September 21, 2004 05:27 PMThe Fish rots from the tail.
Posted by: dubya at September 21, 2004 07:24 PM
The Guardian is not a major media outlet?
Prof. de Long.....should Baathists conduct reprisals for this in Berkeley?
Posted by: venky at September 21, 2004 10:42 PMLet's see...the Manchester Guardian is founded in 1820-21 by ideallists in response to the current political situation, following the brutal suppression by cavalry of a peaceful political rally in 1818 demanding universal suffrage (!) and an end to price gouging justified by the now-over French wars, where many protestors, male and female, were injured or killed and the speakers arrested.
It has never made any pretense of being anything but liberal, in the old-fashioned way that the neocons try to pretend is different from contemporary liberalism, but documentably *isn't*, and it has a diligent and diverse reporting staff, and clearly distinguishes op-ed from journalism.
On the other hand, we have Rupert Murdoch's brand of Fair & Balanced™ "journalism" which doesn't make any effort to keep opinion separate from reporting, and the rest of the SCLM, which hasn't bothered to keep up its inernational reporting because they want to be like FOX and it's expensive to pay qualified people to go travel the world and do research, it's so much easier to just pay ideologues to stay home and make shit up.
If there is a problem with the Guardian, it's a problem of perception.
And *that* problem lies in the wingers and those who have been given to drink of the Hegemony koolaid.
Posted by: bellatrys at September 22, 2004 05:38 AMNote, by the way, that a woman who operates a business is just exactly the type of person who you would expect to be backing a secular democracy in Iraq. The incident shows not only that we're committing atrocites, but also that we're too stupid be able to tell our friends from our enemies, that we allow ourselves to be manipulated by corrupt locals with thei own agenda.
Hitler or Stalin probably would have had a bunch of people shot for incompetence over this.
Posted by: rea at September 22, 2004 05:55 AM"Hitler or Stalin probably would have had a bunch of
people shot for incompetence over this."
George Bush is too stupid to be Hitler. I like it.
"Sadly, the Guardian is too easily dismissed."
If only LGF, FOX, and Rush would report this we could get to the bottom of the story, which is that John Kerry killed this woman's brother in Vietnam.