Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

Note to Hersh:

Don't fly in small planes.

I had always wondered what the Jews in Germany felt like 1933 to 1938. I am begining to get the feel.
Where could one live that would be outside the reach of the upcoming Bush second term?

Most people don't believe that stuff like this could ever happen. They are wrong, but outside of a certain "skeptical 20%" of the population, it takes incontovertible proof to produce any kind of acceptance at all. I have no doubt we are disappearing people; I furthermore question, however, when has the US not been disappearing people (at least through proxies)? I am certain in the paranoid throes of the Cold War 50's and 60's similar excesses abounded. My god, operation Phoenix in Vietnam, how many did we assasinate? Our govenment is not overly gentle, and Brook's "American Exceptionalism" is a complete hoax.

I hated reading "Bend Sinister", and I hate being reminded of it.

"I had always wondered what the Jews in Germany felt like 1933 to 1938. I am begining to get the feel.
Where could one live that would be outside the reach of the upcoming Bush second term?"

Posted by dilbert at June 10, 2004 12:34 PM

When one compares the relative strengths of Germany in the 1930's and the USA today, the answer seems to be 'nowhere on Earth".

So when do you think Chalabi will be "disappeared"?

Problem inherent in the democracy: 40% (roughly Bush's job approval) of our fellow countrymen are retards. And they vote!

> Note to Hersh: Don't fly in small planes.

Another thing: don't stay in hotel rooms alone.

> Note to Hersh: Don't fly in small planes.

Another thing: don't stay in hotel rooms alone.

If I read this correctly, Hersh didn't write about this stuff because it wasn't 'nailed down'.

If Hersh had the journalistic ethics of some of his colleagues, Bush would be out of office tomorrow. I mean, outside of oral sex, what does a guy have to do to get impeached?

A very troubling and despairing post. It's like having a nightmare. Those of us who saw things fairly clearly from the start never imagined it would get this bad. We thought that the sane heads of any administration would reign in the crazies, and that the respectable press would serve as a guard-dog to limit the worst outrages. As someone who remembers, this is much worse than the darkest moments of Vietnam, with the exception of the Kent State massacre. We haven't experienced anything like that only because the current generation of students is so quiescent.

Barry,
I need something to keep me from dark despair, please help.
Knut,
I think that is what those people in Germany thought too.

I fear for Hersh.

"Will no one rid me of this meddlesome [journalist]?"

Bend Sinister, what an amazing and deeply depressing book.

Bend Sinister, what an amazing and deeply depressing book.

oops

Is there ANY way to get a transcript of this?

Also, Brad writes, "Either Seymour Hersh is insane, or we have an administration that needs to be removed from office not later than the close of business today."

I think Hersh may very well be crazy AND correct about the administration. You can only trudge through the darkest aspects of humanity for so long before losing it in some manner.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=679&ncid=742&e=1&u=/usatoday/20040610/cm_usatoday/howinnocentiraqiscametobeabusedasterrorists:

So the chain of events seems to have worked like this: Rules violating the Geneva Conventions were invented for dealing with proven terrorists in specific places or circumstances. But they gradually came to be applied to hundreds of suspects, many of them innocent. Military officials said 70% to 90% of the Iraqis swept up for interrogation were arrested by mistake, the International Committee of the Red Cross reported.

We met the enemy and he is us.

Knut Wicksell,

This can't possibly be worse than the darkest point of Vietnam. In Vietnam well over 1,000,000 Vietnamese and over 50,000 US soldiers died during the time we were involved (http://www.vietnamwall.org/pdf/casualty.pdf). I don't see how we can reasonably say that things are worse now than they were in Vietnam. Or was the Vietnam comparison meant in a different sense?

-"Where could one live that would be outside the reach of the upcoming Bush second term?"

...try Tora Bora, it seemed to work for the world's most wanted man, or maybe Saudi Arabia (hell, you could probably hitch a ride on Air Force One).

If the pictures Hersh saw ever get leaked, that'd be a disaster (all arguments about transparency to the side). I wonder how much longer it will take for the US to earn back the 'moral leadership' position ceded by the Bush administration's reckless foreign policy.

Even if Kerry wins, there are a lot of pieces to put back together. If he loses...no...f**k that.

Note that those pictures Hersh saw were obviously not among the ones shown to the U.S. Congress. Someone in the Congress needs this information, for those of the readership better connected than I.

It's just fucking pathetic. An entire nation's good name utterly destroyed in less than four years by one psychotic frat boy.

>Or was the Vietnam comparison meant in
>a different sense?

I think in terms of damage to the fabric of the body politic in this country -- in what has been done to our civic culture -- it's worse.

You're right -- the body counts aren't comparable.

I echo SW's sentiments. If there actually is video or other evidence of abuse of children by US troops or contractors, well, I don't know what to say next, or how to anticipate my response. It would buckle my knees and take me to the ground.

I echo SW's sentiments. If there actually is video or other evidence of abuse of children by US troops or contractors, well, I don't know what to say next, or how to anticipate my response. It would buckle my knees and take me to the ground.

I echo SW's sentiments. If there actually is video or other evidence of abuse of children by US troops or contractors, well, I don't know what to say next, or how to anticipate my response. It would buckle my knees and take me to the ground.

THe past 3 years have been an overreaction to a catastrophic event. As bad as the embassy bombings were, Clinton did not overreact. That was the big fear after 9/11 and everyone thought that Bush was somewhat restrained and doing a good job in Afghanistan. The first notice we had that the administration was overboard was the PATRIOT act. Since then it has been all fear mongering. Scared people make poor leaders.

If there actually is video or other evidence of abuse of children by US troops or contractors, well, I don't know what to say next, or how to anticipate my response. It would buckle my knees and take me to the ground.

Your knees should have already buckled. The U.S. government sponsored as bad or worse in Central America in the '80s (You know, back when that genial old man we're supposed to mourn and revere was president?) No pictures, though.

I guess that's what makes this different.

spare me your "genial old man" condescension, billmon, and your frat boy gone native self regard. I don't need any history summaries from you, and for me there's ample distinction between "sponsored" and what we're seeing today.

So much is summed up in your adolescent "we're supposed to" -- I can hear you little smirk quite clearly.

>and for me there's ample distinction between >"sponsored" and what we're seeing today.

But when one has led to the other, where's the distinction? It's the same policy, the same process, just developed a little further, implemented in a more direct manner.

I think it does come down to the existence of pictures.

>I wonder how much longer it will >
>take for the US to earn back the
>'moral leadership' position ceded >
>by the Bush administration's
>reckless foreign policy.

A generation? A century?

I think people will NEVER look at the USA the same way again. Justifiably or not, people will draw lines backward, and many aspects of US history, domestic and international, will look different than they do now. There will be a whole new legend of the USA.

I expect that within a year, a new Iraqi government will convene a public tribunal to air the crimes we've heard about and those that we have not. They will have mountains of evidence. What effect it will have on Americans I can't say.
I think the effect on everybody else's view of Americans is already clear. It will be deepened and clarified and made permanent. Much of what we now think of as America's historic reputation will be overshadowed by it.

“Shock and awe” has been the hallmark of the Iraq war since its beginning. President Bush on 9/11 asked, “Why do they hate us?” and gave his own perfunctory answer as he initiated a war of overwhelming military power. “Shock and awe” was driven home to every soldier in the field, and to the military commanders. To those taught to do the killing, “shock and awe” translates into “fear and humiliation.”

It is not hard to realize why the reports of Human Rights Watch and the International Red Cross were ignored. And even why the warnings of Colin Powell and some of the military officers were ignored.

The thousands of brutal actions being taken were not mentioned to the echelons at the top because it was well understood that those actions are what was expected by “shock and awe.”
-Bill Ellis

I have been a supporter of Bush all along, but if I saw proof that our military was engaged in the abuse of children as policy, I would drop Bush in a heart beat.

Saroff and S9 said it first, but it was the first thing I thought of on reading Hersh's remarks, and the words "he looked frightened."

Stay out of small planes. Don't go anywhere alone.

I used to shake my head in disbelief at the thought that people would say things like these. Now I'm saying them. I hope Sy Hersh is saying them too.

it's not condescension, David. it's the chain of command, those 138 names Hersh noted, names like Otto Reich, men who engaged in criminal acts, including the support of death squads who raped and killed nuns.

There is a direct line of descent from Reagan's administration to this one.

If America does not stop this adminstration NOW, via the proper channels established by rule of law...remember the Constitution?...then we, as a nation, have embraced utter depravity.

Bush has dragged the good name of this nation into the gutter.

Ongoing news coverage:

http://news.google.com/news?num=30&hl=en&edition=us&ie=ascii&q=George-Bush+torture

The movie Brazil is for some reason percolating up into my mind as I read all this. Dark, very dark.

I also keep thinking Blipverts when I watch the politcal ads and commentary.

Fiction is becoming reality. One step at a time.

At the rate things are going, Kruschev will be proven right.

David - go the the Museum of American atrocities in Hanoi and take a long, hard look at the pictures of grinning Marines holding severed VC heads.

Pictures may be worth a thousand words, but just cause the lens hasn't witnessed something doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

No condenscension intended.

d smith:

Legitimate query here--the exposed widespread abuse of adults, supported by now-exposed administration policy, isn't enough for you to reject Bush? If not, why?

Lot's of despair here. Yes, Sy Hersh has reason to be afraid, but this administration is unraveling. Maybe only one quarter of it will come out, but that should be plenty.

The American people think of themselves as Good. They don't like it when someone calls that seriously into doubt. Dilbert wondered what the Jews in Germany felt like 1933 to 1938. I wonder what the Germans felt like in 1948.

The C-141's lift off *every day* from McChord AFB, their heavy gray bulk arcing impossibly slowly above the crowded commuters on I-5.

Inside, forty sad soldiers riding fold-down seats side-saddle amid pallets of war cargo, strapped down for a 14-hour flight.

Back on earth, conversations continue uninterrupted. There's some goofy radio announcer making fun of Bush. Howard is doing his morning sex thing. Still.

Everyone around me looks straight ahead, hurtling through asphalt space at 88 feet per second.

In a few moments more, that giant C-141 is lost from sight, only it's smoke contrails hanging in the sky.

I wonder what's on Fox tonight?

It's kinda sad when political commentary degenerates into choss, recycled, sardonic, trite and ultimately, just massage therapy.

It's really sad when political humor devolves into sight gags, and pithy emotionless pantomimes:

"How much will the war in Iraq cost, Mr. Bush?" (imitating our listless Press Corps)

"A hundred dollars, (imitating Rain Man), yeah, yeah, a hundred dollars."

It's ultimately tragic, when the best thing we can find to raise our spirits in these dark times is a hot bath in Reagan's blood, candles lit to hide his true back-story, soft martial music on the radio playing a dirge for America's future.

We are totally, royally f&*ked.

John Carter: The American people think of themselves as Good. They don't like it when someone calls that seriously into doubt.

And the typical response is to shoot that someone.

Separate issue is what the Germans felt in 1948. That depends on which Germans. East Germans felt mostly fear with a bit of hunger. West Germans - mostly gratitude. Communism is a great evil. We are the lesser evil. Makes you happy, does not it?

If you haven't been riding in that C-141, or lived expatriate for enough years to become part of a foreign community, especially an outback rural community with communal values, then you can't possibly imagine what it's like to come back to Corporate-State America with eyes clear, ears open . . . and stomach heaving.

I was reading the London Review of Books, and there's a good piece by Slavoj Zizek, written before the torture memo came out. It ends thus:

::

Who can forget the Department of Defense news briefing in February 2003, when Donald Rumsfeld pondered the relationship between the known and the unknown: 'There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say, we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know.' What he forgot to add was the crucial fourth term: the 'unknown knowns', things we don't know that we know, which is precisely the Freudian unconscious, the 'knowledge which doesn't know itself', as Lacan used to say. Rumsfeld thought the main dangers in the confrontation with Iraq were the 'unknown unknowns', the threats from Saddam that hadn't been foreseen. The Abu Ghraib scandal shows where the real dangers are: in the 'unknown knowns', the disavowed beliefs, suppositions, and obscene practices we pretend not to know about, although they form the flipside of public morality. (In Britain, the exposure of the Mirror's photographs of British abuses as fake has allowed government and public alike to repress, for the moment, their own 'unknown knowns'.) Bush was wrong: in the photos of humiliated Iraqi prisoners, what we get is, precisely, an insight into 'American values'.

::

Some people are re-reading 'Heart of Darkness'; I'm re-reading 'Nostromo'.

Tante

That brought back a memory or two. My father was stationed at Wheeler AFB in Hawaii in 70. Of course we went with him.

We flew military standby from Travis to Hickam on a 141. Grand adventure for newbie teenager, for about the first hour. It was cold, loud and spartan. Pallet seating was hell and I kept looking at the equipment pallets and wondering what was in them.
When we settled, I spent a great deal of time in awe of the traffic out of Hickam. Medivac, contract and C-5's going to and coming from Viet Nam. It seemed endless. I was a plane buff and it was exciting. Then slowly it began to creep into my sheltered brain these planes meant something.
When we returned to the states (San Antonio), we came by standby on a contracted Continental flight with returning troops. By then I was clued in. They did not look excited about going home. Many still had mud on their fatigues. They just looked tired and a bit lost. Reality had not sunk in yet.
When we settled in SA, our house was directly in the flight path for the main runway at Kelly. Again, endless flights. For a long time, day or night the traffic was no more than two minutes apart. Many of the flights were the Medivac flights in I think what were DC-9's. I knew where their contents were headed and I would give a small prayer each time.

The point is things were surreal then. I could feel the dichotomy between my reality of going to school and doing normal teenager stuff and realizing above my head was the business of something totally outside that of those below it.

I sort of get that feeling again. I read things such as this article on Sy Hersh and then go to work at my happy little job the next day. I find myself staring at the folks around me wondering if any of them have a clue. the only one I can say comes close is an old Viet Nam era Corpsman. He is not a happy man.

Military contractors Titan and CACI are getting sued for torture. Here an FT article.

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1086445557450&p=1012571727102

Reuters cameraman Mazen Dana was killed by a US soldier firing from a tank outside Abu Ghraib prison in Aug (Sept?) 2003. Before he was murdered he had discovered US soldiers were burying bodies wrapped in plastic in mass graves in the desert around Baghdad. He told colleagues that a source, a US merc, told him the bodies were soldiers and other mercenaries lured to Iraq with the promise of green cards and eventual US citizenship. Dana told family and friends in the weeks before he died that he thought the US military was watching him and that he was afraid. So we have torture, mass graves, we're even poisoning our own soldiers (and all of Iraq) with depleted uranium. Will we be re-electing Bush with 99% of the vote, too?

After all thats been exposed of this administration, and yet he still carries 44% of voters approval.. It should be at 1%.

Sad time for America.

Wow, quite hillarious how this entire message board is nothing more then one giant left wing circle jerk

1) honestly CS, why would the US gov't bury their own soldiers in plastic bags in iraq. The current body count is well publicized and appears weekly in The Army Times for example, not to mention prominently displayed on the Army's website. It is not as if a platoon of soldiers suddently gets killed and the Army is able to somehow cover that up from the families and public, not to mention all of the redundant layers of internal policing.

2) had you taken the time to study the subject, as opposed to standing up on your soap box, you'd realize that depleted uranium is really only used on heavy army weapons systems, the type which generally are not used during counter-insurgency warfare, and that furthermore DU is hazardous in the same way that any heavy metal is, in other words, using a tungsten/lead based shell for a tank would be just as bad.

As for the torture, the only thing that we know for certain right now is that it took place in a horribly run reserve unit that lacked even basic military discipline and decorum. hardly a reflection on the active duty forces or those that have even a remotely functioning chain of command

The fact is that there were more than a few Germans in 1948 that rued they had lost the war--not that Hitler was a genocidal madman or that the ideals and methods of the Third Reich (with their superlative chains of command) were unacceptable and a form of death-worship.

Just like many Confederates in 1868 regretted only their defeat--and rejected not one iota the slave economy and master race culture they fought for in glorious "active duty".

Just like in 2008...Keep laughing, jolly Jon. At least you won't be alone. Better yet, remember your comments a few years from now when the consequences of Bush's pisspoor leadership become more evident.

There will always be folks who can't smell smoke, and need to be burned by the fire I guess.

And that's why the Lying Chimp is above 1%. His supporters are in such denial, to save face most likely, that they just don't belive the evidence in front of their eyes.

Jon -- Your question about why we would bury US soldiers in the desert is precisely my point. So if they're not US soldiers, who are they? Mazen Dana is dead, shot from a tank outside Abu Ghraib prison after having been given permission to shoot film there. His description of bodies wrapped in plastic long preceeds what we've seen and read about plastic-wrapped body at Abu Ghraib.

Jon, I heard a former head of CIA counter-intelligence give a speech over a year ago in which he argued that Americans had to get over our "sqeamishness" about torture and assassination as tools of "the war on terror." I heard him speak in the midwest, but here's a link to an article on a similar talk he gave in Texas:

http://tinyurl.com/32p7g

Here's the link to info on Mazen Dana:

http://tinyurl.com/2qhom

Here's the link to Uranium Medical Research Center info on DU in Iraq:

http://tinyurl.com/yr68h

Here's an article about NY National Guard soldiers suffering radiation contamination after serving in Iraq:

http://tinyurl.com/2jygb

What has happened in Afghanistan and Iraq is a reflection on our military, and on our civilian defense department and on all of us. But most immediately it has permanently damaged the lives of the victims and their families, and the men and women who believed they were following a noble calling by serving in the military in our name. We can't blow it off as "a few bad apples" we have to face it and deal with it. We are all accountable.

Jon -- Your question about why we would bury US soldiers in the desert is precisely my point. So if they're not US soldiers, who are they? Mazen Dana is dead, shot from a tank outside Abu Ghraib prison after having been given permission to shoot film there. His description of bodies wrapped in plastic long preceeds what we've seen and read about plastic-wrapped body at Abu Ghraib.

Jon, I heard a former head of CIA counter-intelligence give a speech over a year ago in which he argued that Americans had to get over our "sqeamishness" about torture and assassination as tools of "the war on terror." I heard him speak in the midwest, but here's a link to an article on a similar talk he gave in Texas:

http://tinyurl.com/32p7g

Here's the link to info on Mazen Dana:

http://tinyurl.com/2qhom

Here's the link to Uranium Medical Research Center info on DU in Iraq:

http://tinyurl.com/yr68h

Here's an article about NY National Guard soldiers suffering radiation contamination after serving in Iraq:

http://tinyurl.com/2jygb

What has happened in Afghanistan and Iraq is a reflection on our military, and on our civilian defense department and on all of us. But most immediately it has permanently damaged the lives of the victims and their families, and the men and women who believed they were following a noble calling by serving in the military in our name. We can't blow it off as "a few bad apples" we have to face it and deal with it. We are all accountable.

DU is used in the projectiles fired by M-1 Abrams tanks, M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles and A-10 aircraft.

All have been deployed to Iraq. I can understand that the M-1 tanks are not using DU shells since 'major combat operations' but the A-10s and M2s fire 30mm and 25mm shells and they're probably still rattling off those when dealing with infantry attacks.

We've dumped tons of DU on Iraq over the past 12 years. The jury is still out on the health effects of DU. Apparently the Navy made a decision to ditch DU in favor of tungsten for one of their weapon systems. The tungsten was good enough for their purposes and they just didn't want to deal with the potential pollution/health effects of the DU.

Hey, does anybody know where a transcript of Sy's speech can be obtained? I want to see the whole thing and I can't even find out -- assuming that it is recent -- if it actually exists. Google had nothing. Brad piece points to the University of Chicago. The Univ. of Chicago Chronicle announced Hersh was to give the keynote address at its May 14-15 media conference but cancelled at the last minute. End of leads.

All the above, combined with Brad's qualifier at the beginning of the piece, has me totally baffled. Like, help, where did this come from?

"It's just fucking pathetic. An entire nation's good name utterly destroyed in less than four years by one psychotic frat boy."

Any people are susceptible to nationalism, it's just the US's turn to realise that. After all the people are just immigrants from other countries that had nationalist dictators at some stage.

Also the stigma will take decades or more to erase. Look at Germany, Spain, Italy, Japan, Chile, Nicaragua, Panama, Russia, Serbia, etc. It's not their shame they had that kind of dictator but that such a large percentage of their populations approved of it. If it wasn't so, those dictators could have been easily gotten rid of.

If you have any inequality in a society then some people will take advantage of it. If you have someone who distorts the natural system and creates artificial inequalities then some people will again exploit that arrangement and resist going back to a normal system. There are plenty of people doing well under Bush, and don't want to see it end no matter what.

miller,

i too went looking for a transcript. hersh's may talk was postponed and given on june 8.

http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/040603.hersh.shtml

i'm tempted to call uc and see if there is an audio tape. if i learn anything, i'll post it here.

If this horrible thing is true (and so far it's only hearsay, though consistent with what we do know already) impeachment and disgrace will not be enough. Conspiracy to torture requires prosecution for felonies, hard time in Marion, and no presidential pardons.

What surprises me the most is that a lot of you think that the US had a good reputation before Bush. Do you honestly think that the rest of the world has forgotten that your government was responsible for supporting some of the worst regimes and commiting the worst atrocities?

Guatemala (CIA organized coup in the 50s), Iran (same), Chile (CIA organized coup in the 70s), Nicaragua (selling arms to Iran to support the contras), El Salvador (military death squads financed with your money), Vietnam (1-4 million dead depending on who's counting), etc.

Bush contribution is only one more item in a long list. When will you realize that your government, and by extension you, have become the scourge of this planet?

I'm asking myself, "Do I really disapprove of people being disappeared, tortured, etc, and that's the reason I hate Bush?" I don't think so, really. I think that the reason I disapprove of the aforementioned activities is because I was inclined to hate Bush before-hand, and this, among other things, helped rationalize it.

I think that whether I considered something right or wrong depends a lot on the circumstances. For instance: an SS soldier who kills Jews, prying the gold fillings out of their teeth, able to live a fairly luxurious lifestyle, I consider "bad," whereas, while I've probably effectively killed around 30 people throughout my life through my relatively luxurious lifestyle that could have maintained many people with lower standards of living, I don't think of myself as a bad person for doing so, even though I'm basically doing the same thing. In short, my outrage at Bush is effectively using the knowledge of torture as a tool to rationalize pre-existing anti-Bushism. The torture and such didn't CAUSE anti-Bushism

Anyway, my point is, we shouldn't be so judgemental of those who still support Bush without wondering about our own motivations in opposing him. If the people outraged at Bush had been, like the country as a whole, 50% having voted for him in the 2000 election and 50% having voted for Gore, while the people not really outraged about the torture had been likewise divided, then perhaps we would be justified in claiming the bankruptcy of those who still support him. As it is, though, both sides views' on the torture matter usually fit in with prejudices we had before torture was ever alleged, or, for that matter, before Bush ever stepped into the Oval Office.

well, not so naive,

most of us are in some serious denial here, aided by a culture that gives us lots of distractions and a very good system of propaganda.

but many of us do realize just what you have said. and we are trying to combat the ignorance. have a look at jon's post and see what we are up against.

this country WILL crash. and maybe we will take the planet down with us. even removing bush isn't going to do the trick, as you correctly point out, this is who we have become as a nation. but the rest of the world has got to stand together and stop us, because it is quite obvious that we are not going to stop ourselves. (there are some bold efforts underway. i'm thinking in particular of hugo chavez in venezuela attempting to organize latin america.)

now, before jon begins calling me a worthless piece of commie scum who hates america, let me say that i am well into my 50s and lived all of my life until the last few years in typical american self-delusion. not the kind where i denied what we were doing, but the kind where i believed that with a change in administrations we would stop doing it. i know better now. but it is very late in the game.

i'm sorry to put this problem off on the rest of the world, but i think it is time to quit counting on americans to wake up. you can't afford to wait. those of you who live in governments who are complicit are americans, too. those of you who live in governments who pander to america's policies because you need the money or the protection are mafia dupes. this is a two-way street here. please, tell me, what is the solution? i don't see much hope to rectify the situation.

and yet, those of us here who are tired and depressed, and who may feel and talk as though we are defeated, won't quit trying to break through the wall of ignorance and denial that exists for many, if not most, of our fellow countrymen. we write blogs and news articles and books, we petition our governing officials, we march, even though it all seems as though no one hears us and we are just talking to ourselves (jon's liberal circle jerk).

the more radical amongst us are at this very moment advocating rebellion and preparing for civil war.

in our own ways, we'll keep on trying to correct the situation.

we need your help. and thank you for it.

When, and to whom, was the Sy Hersh speech given - Any way to get a transcript?

Frightened or not, I think Hersh has to stop alluding and start producing these ghastly pieces of evidence. Perhaps the time is not yet right, what with the Reagan mourning orgy still going on, and the still-unsettled question of what INDEPENDENT investigation will give us the definitive answers, but Hersh ultimately has a moral obligation to report this in convincing detail to the public.

Bush's tap dancing at the G-8 meeting about whether he has forbidden torture strongly suggests that there is somewhere an authorizing memo/directive. For it to be an effective order, it had to be distributed far beyond the tight little neocon circle at the top. As the investigation moves upward, as it is already starting to do, there inevitably will be already disgruntled military officials who are unwilling to fall on their swords for Bush. They will give him up. In fact, the leaking of the memos we've seen so far suggests that this process has already begun.

Part of the horrified fascination I remember from Watergate was the great unease about whether Nixon, once he was finally boxed into an unescapable corner, would give up power voluntarily. I feel the same unease now, but am very thankful that the Bushco incompetents have managed to alienate both the military and the CIA in the course of their fumbling. The fact that damning information is now leaking from these two parties gives me hope they would not cooperate in a pusch to keep Bush in power.

There is a difference which some on this board are missing.

I have no doubt that Sy Hersh is correct about the treatment of children at not only Abu Ghraib but throughout the US gulag system. What makes this different from Vietnam or Guatemala or whatever other example people are introducing here is that this is a case of *depravity* which is almost unimaginable.

Intention matters.

Cruel/inhuman is not the same as depraved.

Killing an enemy in a prison is worse than killing him on the battlefield.

Killing a child is worse than killing an adult.

Raping or sexually torturing someone is worse than beating them.

Exploiting the bond between parent and child is worse than exploiting the bond between friends.

Because these things are true, revelations of the sexually depraved abuse of children at Abu Ghraib will shake Americans and the world to their core. Some will weep. Some will rage. Some will minimize. Some will refuse to believe against all evidence because they literally *cannot* do so -- it would destroy their ability to function in the world.

It's not about numbers. It's not about one man in the Oval Office. It is about the darkness -- and give Bush his due, there truly *is* evil in the world -- that lies on the hearts of Americans. It is about the horror.

What I find most disturbing is the idea that this administration feels that it is above the law. At this rate a Bush victory will mean that the 2004 campaign will be refered to as "American Democracy's Farewell Tour"

Re:I wonder how much longer it will >
>take for the US to earn back the
>'moral leadership' position ceded >
>by the Bush administration's
>reckless foreign policy.

As a Canadian I think that the change in attitude toward the US is not simply the result of the morally corrupt administration, it stems also from the ethically bankrupt media.

Does anyone have any real proof of the sexual torture of children in Iraq by US soldiers? Charges that serious (like accusations of WMD) need indisputable proof.

Jason and Smith are right; Hersh or somebody else needs to present the proof. However, Hersh's track record on Abu Ghraib is so good and the risks to his professional reputation and career of making false changes this inflamatory are so enormous that I cannot believe he is wrong. As Brad's correspondent said, "He asserted several things that he says he didn't have nailed down enough to write, but that he was confident of."

Hersh alluded to the sexual abuse of children at Abu Ghraib on Charlie Rose in early May. Now again. Surely he wants an airtight case before *formally* breaking this part of the story in print (no allusion to children in any of his New Yorker pieces). He is surely also weighing the reponsibility of reporting this information against the incredible costs which will be paid by all involved no matter how tangentially, on people who are probably his sources as well as on US soldiers in the Middle East. We know from comments from people like Woodward that the elite media sees itself as a responsible gatekeeper of information. While I reject this role, it may be that Hersh is playing it in his own mind.

This story will surely break before November. We may have to wait a few months, however, for all the horrible details.

@Smith: Frightened or not, I think Hersh has to stop alluding and start producing these ghastly pieces of evidence.

Well, Hersh will be producing the evidence in his book about Abu Ghraib entitled Chain of Command. It's due out from Harper Collins this fall.

OK, here is a little history lesson on how to prosecute a war correctly. War can suck for everyone, but it is like they say.."if you wanna do it right; do it right." We do not have a Eisenhower, or a Schawrzkopf. We do not have true competent leader. We have incomptence.

The reason we have a Geneva Convention and fair treatment of prisoners is a "war strategy" to help win the war. If an enemy combatent knows he will be treated fairly..then they give up in droves as the Iraqi's gave up in Gulf War 1, and they were treated humanely...back in 1991.

So, the history lesson begins with the Nazi SS Malmedy massacre of US troops caught up in the "Battle of the Bulge". This is in WW11, if you have forgotten. Hundreds of US soldiers were captured and executed SS style. (Please keep in mind that the SS did that to Russian soldier prisoners also, as they put Russian soldiers in concentration camps...when Russians found that out...things got worse and "no mercy" for all Germans, man,women and child)...When US soldiers found out what happened after Malmedy; it stiffened its resolve; the GI Joe was not likely to surrender as easily as his German counterpart, who also gave up in droves near the end (not the fanatical).
So, when the insurgents or any American enemy now knows he will not be treated humanely, but with "stress positions" and "fear of attack dogs" and unsevere beatings (whatever that means);
then we have now stiffened the resolve of our made-enemies. We have also made it a "war of no rules" by lowering ourselves to Guerilla war tactics...so you see...we have severely f'd up.
All the double-talk cannot make go away the extreme danger now posed to US peacekeepers in Iraq and elsewhere...Now the US soldier has stiffened his/ her resolve not to get captured; ore be beheaded; now the iraqi insurgents have stiffened its resolve not to surrender but to now fight like a Nazi SS fanatic.
We sleep in the bed we made now, I feel so sorry for the soldiers and parents of soldiers on duty because they are fighting a war where it is being prosecuted by incompetent fanatics.

War is hell. Our reputation that we so coveted in propaganda is now Kaput, as the Germans used to coin a phrase. My direct family fought in the revolutionary war, there are portaits of them in musuems. That is why I am so sad, also.
Goodnight America!

If it's concern about the children, I think we already have plenty of information to tell us how we can expect they are being treated. (Some of us won't believe unless we see it with our own eyes, and some of us will justify it even if we do.)

To cite a few cases that have been reported:
....
Al-Baz said he saw a 12– or 13-year-old Iraqi girl brought into the prison.

Late at night, he said, she was brought in front of his and other prison cells, naked and screaming. Her brother, held in an upper cell, heard her scream and call out for his help, said al-Baz.

On another occasion, al-Baz said, he saw a 15-year-old Iraqi boy, who was ill, being forced to hold two heavy cans of water and run up and down a corridor. If the boy stopped, he was beaten with a stick by an American soldier, al-Baz said.

“He collapsed from exhaustion, so they stripped him and poured cold water over him,” al-Baz said.

Scotsman.com
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2894655

...

But in recent weeks there have been increasing reports of Iraqi men, women and even children being dragged from their homes at night by American patrols, or snatched off the streets and taken, hooded and manacled, to prison camps around the capital.

Children as young as 11 are claimed to be among those locked up for 24 hours a day in rooms with no light, or held in overcrowded tents in temperatures approaching 50C (122F).

...One of the most disturbing incidents concerns Sufiyan Abd al-Ghani, 11, who was with his uncle in a car that was stopped near his home in Hay al-Jihad at just after 10pm on May 27. The boy’s father heard a commotion and rushed outside to see him sprawled face down on the road with a rifle muzzle pressed against his neck and US officers shouting that someone in the car had shot at them.

Sufiyan was made to stay on the ground for three hours, while more than 100 soldiers poured into the neighborhood, searching houses and cars. Eventually he was taken away with his hands trussed behind his back and a hood draped over his head. No weapon had been found. The boy said that soldiers dug rifle butts into his neck and back and that the first night he was handcuffed and left alone in a tiny room open to the sky.

The following day he was moved to the airport, where he said for eight days he shared a tent with 22 adults, sleeping on the dirt, with no water to wash or change his clothes.

Sufiyan said that he was pulled from the tent one morning, hooded and manacled again, and driven to Sarhiyeh prison, to be kept in a room with 20 other youths aged 15 or 16 — regarded as minors by the Geneva Convention.

A woman inmate took his name and details and when she was released she alerted Sufiyan’s family. On June 21, the family obtained an injunction from a judge ordering the boy’s release, but they were told at the prison that the signature of an Iraqi judge no longer had legal authority. Even when an American military lawyer demanded his freedom, US troops refused to release him until the lawyer appeared at the prison. Privately US military lawyers say that they are appalled at how some of the arrests are being carried out.

Common Dreams
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0709-06.htm

...

A military intelligence analyst who recently completed duty at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq said Wednesday that the 16-year-old son of a detainee there was abused by U.S. soldiers to break his father's resistance to interrogators.

The analyst said the teenager was stripped naked, thrown in the back of an open truck, driven around in the cold night air, splattered with mud and then presented to his father at Abu Ghraib, the prison at the center of the scandal over abuse of Iraqi detainees.

Upon seeing his frail and frightened son, the prisoner broke down and cried and told interrogators he would tell them whatever they wanted, the analyst said.

Yahoo News
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2027&e=5&u=/chitribts/giboymistreatedtogetdadtotalk
....

And in that last one, it doesn't even appear that the boy was a prisoner.

And yet, I have to wonder about those of us who will only be concerned if the children are abused in prison. I'm thinking that years of sanctions that starved them and kept them from getting proper medical care, and then having their feet and arms blown off, not to mention their heads, in constant civilian bombings for the past year, is a pretty grave horror. But that's just me.

i just hope people don't think this will end if kerry gets elected. kerry supports the war. indeed, no one would even have a chance at the presidency if they were to substantially question the role of self-styled global patriarch which the US has cemented itself in to ever since the end of WWII.

wars, wars by proxy, corporate takeovers of entire economies and social infrastructures... this is an empire we're dealing with here, not one rogue administration. it's not as if bush could have entirely restructured the country in one term. all that military power, skill in and resources for torture, economic clout, lack of transparency, systemic racism, a ruling class of uber-elites... it didn't come from nowhere.

sorry to say it, but america only ever had "moral leadership" with americans, and only a certain percentage of them at that.

Since we invaded Iraq I have been answering my phone with "Impeach Bush." Each of us now has to start saying not only "Impeach Bush" but also "then turn him and his cronies over to an international tribunal for war crimes." We have to say it loudly and publicly without fear or shame.

Only impeachment and a war crimes trial for W and his friends will redeem the USA.

During Russert's "interview" with the Moron he asked him how he would accept losing the election, and the response was a very firm "We won't lose." I may not have the exact quote, but the point is that this type of self assurance indicated to me that the fix is already in. Whatever Hersh has , whatever Tenet has, and anyone else has regarding the criminal monstrous nature of this Admin better do it PDQ. After Reagan's burial, starting on the Sunday talk shows Kerry and the Dem Party had better get on this torture story quick and not let it go.

TheMiller: I've just done the same search and have pretty much the same question, though it seemed to me that Hersh's cancellation was for a May date and that he did in fact give the Convocation address on 6/8. A search of the Tribune and the Sun Times, however, shows nothing, nor does the independent press in Chicago. If what Brad has posted is true (and I have little doubt that it is), we'll probably just have to wait for the New Yorker to clue us in!

The fix is definitely in, but I'm sure it's several factors, including Diebold, a terror attack on the US in September/October, some mixture of martial law and postponing of elections.

I never, ever in my wildest dreams, actually felt I couldn't trust my government -- even under Reagan, they managed to do =some= things right.

Under Bush, I've yet to see anything other than his raising the tax-credit for adopting a child from $5,000 to $10,000.

There's a messianic complex at 1600, and we're all going to pay the price. It's time to wake up -- the damage done will take generations to undo.

I called the contact number on the University of Chicago News page; it sounded like it was Prof. Gretchen Soderlund's home phone number. Feeling awkward and sensing discomfort from her, I asked her if a transcript of Seymour Hersh's talk would eventually be made available on the UC website.

She said no, that "he had basically asked that it remain in the room."

Please don't call that number and bug her, I felt bad enough as it was. Perhaps Mr. Hersh will write it up and publish it as a future column.

So long as he does his writing in well-populated public areas, that is.

I don't think anyone here has written that they would only become concerned about the current torture issue when it became clear that children were among the victims. The smug moralizing self satisfaction of some on the "left" is quite astonishing.

I see Hersh is remaining consistent with his outrage about torture of Abu Ghraib prisoners under Saddam. Why, he must have wrote at least 100,000 words about it, obsessed over the brutality of Saddam's regime for months on end, haunted by the horrors perpetrated with the blessing of that government.

Batshit,

I am not responsible for what Saddam did. I as a citizen am responsible for what Bush did.

David, you can take the charge of "smug moralizing" and stick up your ass.Morally, torture is torture. I don't give a shit whether it's men, women or children. Most Americans who have kids will be sickened and repulsed, just like a random murder of a child you might read about in the paper is somehow more troubling than when someone's Uncle Ralph is wacked. My concern about the torturing of Iraq children only extends so far as it would precipitate the downfall of these murdering bastards in Washington, and finally make these flag waving "support our troops" cocksuckers to start to experience some introspection.It's about time the US be honest about our history. What's happening in Iraq is no aberration.

>>>I don't think anyone here has written that they would only become concerned about the current torture issue when it became clear that children were among the victims.

You stated your knees would buckle when a video was presented to you showing such actions. Yes?

"When", so stated, is not to here denote by inference "only when"? "At such time as"?

You can perhaps see my perplexity. This construction generally stands in opposition to 'current time'. Or, if you like, current physical position. Again by usage with to sentence subject: to imply current state of belief.

Possibly you mean us to understand you lie already prone upon the ground. Buckled knees' from that position presents a poorer rhetorical flourish, so I had assumed not.

>>The smug moralizing self satisfaction of some on the "left" is quite astonishing.

And a gracious good day to you too.

>>>I don't think anyone here has written that they would only become concerned about the current torture issue when it became clear that children were among the victims.

quote:

I have been a supporter of Bush all along, but if I saw proof that our military was engaged in the abuse of children as policy, I would drop Bush in a heart beat.
Posted by: d smith on June 10, 2004 09:15 PM

ok, one person, and a Bush supporter at that. However, if you read d smith's text closely, m, you'll find that there's nothing there about becoming newly concerned. I think you are reading your own sense of moral superiority into what others have written.

to Zach, you are not perplexed, just being inattentive and obtuse. I would find evidence (not solely "video" evidence, as I stated) of abuse of children enormously and uniquely disturbing (a metaphor for that: my knees would buckle) -- I'm sorry I didn't spell out for you or the other administrators of assorted litmus tests my assorted levels of disgust and concern regarding what we've seen to date, and regarding the many historical incidents of brutal behavior by Americans. It's this need by many on the "left" to parse every statement for ideological and moral sufficiency that is so amusingly offputting for me -- zach's tortured sentences are as fine an example as any

This is not Sy Hersh's story. The story came to him. The story continues to move forward as the core people within defence/military/intel push it forward. There are many many high ranking unhappy people who are not going to blow their careers, by accepting the blame for orders they followed, so that bush can have another 4 years. Sy happens to have a good view of the inside relative to others, but he is by no means the fulcrum in pushing it forward, he is just one of many. Bush and co are being ripped out root and branch. They have been given a 5 day stay for the sake of Reagan, by sunset tonight its over.

Do no confuse the Moron's certainty on Russert for evidence of a fix. "The Moron" and others are on happy drug regimens that help them sleep and live with the consequences of their decisions. Where people like Nixon manifested psychosis in the later stages of severe guilt and depression, and clinton emoted, the Bush people tend to completely negate their questioning side through the wonders of medication. Every wonder how Rush Limbaugh can be so zealous and committed sounding day after day? Its called oxy cotin. Many of our biggest partisans are on designed regimens of various and assundary. It is these drugs that prevent them from listening to the internal dialogs and feelings that would permit compromise and self reflection. And is also what bolsters the near psychotic conviction of their own correctness in the face of the obvious looming catostrophe.

You know, the American press is way behind the rest of the world in reporting what's going on in America. These posts prove it: why is everybody focusing on these torture incidents, and not talking about the well-documented disappearance of 3,000 Taliban fighters under American military control in Western Afghanistan at the end of the war there? (Want details? How about hundreds of men packed into 18-wheeler trucks and driven over several days across the desert in blistering heat; when they begged for ventilation because they were suffocating, the Afghan coalition allies machine-gunned the trucks to provide air-holes--with the men still inside. This was on the way to the killing fields.) The United Nations knows about this massacre and wants to investigate it--among other things to determine whether it was actually American troops who slaughtered the men, or whether they just turned a blind eye while the local warlords did it--but the United States will not guarantee the safety of any U.N. inspectors in Western Afghanistan. This is old news in Canada, there've been documentaries by respectable news agencies about it aired on national TV since last year. So why does it seem that you guys aren't aware of it?
As to people being disappeared, a major major scandal in Canada right now is the Maher Arar affair: where the Bush administration took an innocent Canadian citizen off a connecting flight bound for Canada, which happened to be pausing in the U.S., disappeared him and as it later turned out shipped him off to Syria, where he was systematically tortured for the next year. We got him back. But with no help or explanation from U.S. authorities. Maher Arar is now a very angry man, and a very vocal one, too. His is another story you should be following... if you're willing to pay attention to the news from sources outside the U.S.

1) what infantry attacks? the majority of attacks in Iraq are ambushes conducted by onesies and twosies, not major operations which require the use of heavy systems. the notable exception is al sadr's militia, but again that's the exception. to add DU to your laundry list of claims is pretty ridiculous

2) it's quite amusing how you claim that i somehow think of you as some sort of "commie". but i do accuse the majority of you have an arrogance of the most perverse type. from reading many of the posts made you people are so convinced of your own intellectual superiority that anyone who disagrees with you is obviously an illiterate chimp. the fact that anyone would spend their freetime perusing the website of an economist should be enough to separate you from such delusions, but sadly that is not the case.

3) re. historical use of the geneva conventions and POW: keep in mind the nature of the enemy we are fighting. the conscripts of the 1991 iraqi army most certainly did not want to fight and would have surrendered regardless of our prior history. we are not fighting the germans now who would be willing to surrender in order to enjoy our club med POW camps set up in the midwest. our enemies nowadays are of an entirely different breed then those that we have previously fought. this does not necessarily condone the use of torture, however it does brush aside the argument that the treatment of prisoners in captivity is in any way connected with their willingness to surrender. i mean, in the march up to baghdad, enemy insurgents would quite literally attack an armored column with a single pickup truck or on bicycle. if you think that the mentality that could allow this to happen is even remotely concerned about treatment in captivity, then you are sadly confused about the nature of our enemy.

4) re. stress positions, "unsevere beatings"

stress positions are basically the same type of positions that you might see in those old school movies regarding punishment in private schools. being told to sit in "the thinker" position for hours at a time, or having to crouch in weird ways. unsevere beatings refers to being able to slap people with an open hand across the face, but not with a closed. there is absolutely nothing new with these techniques as they have been used worldwide for quite some time. so, if you have a problem with these methods, well, that's your right. however keep in mind that it would however be wrong to ascribe such methods solely to the bush administration, as the techniques predate him by quite some time.

the irony is that many of the posters here manifest the type of personality which they supposedly abhor. a sense of moral superiority and total conviction of their own correctness that negates even the remotest possibility of them being wrong. if the continued survival of democracy in america is really such a concern of you all, then you would be well-advised to reconsider your own trains of thought.

what's really funny is that i have yet to identify any of my own politics or personal beliefs, rather just threw out thinking points. yet, so many people here are so used to leftist group-think that any contrary opinion or playing of devil's advocate must automatically make me some sort of reactionary bush lover

I think that (as some have already alluded to) this type of horrendous behavior occurs in all wars. This is the reason that it is often the uniformed bigwigs who are the most reticent about going to war. God almighty, they must say, do not unleash these dogs for some frivolous reason.

It seems impossible to predict who is going to lose it and who won't. That little Lyndie person. Who could have predicted her behavior?? No wonder Powell so strongly advocated the so-called Powell Doctrine. The military has to be keep on a VERY tight leash, with a Very clear mission. And do Not skimp on the number you send in. We cannot leave anyone unsupervised.

I think that (as some have already alluded to) this type of horrendous behavior occurs in all wars. This is the reason that it is often the uniformed bigwigs who are the most reticent about going to war. God almighty, they must say, do not unleash these dogs for some frivolous reason.

It seems impossible to predict who is going to lose it and who won't. That little Lyndie person. Who could have predicted her behavior?? No wonder Powell so strongly advocated the so-called Powell Doctrine. The military has to be keep on a VERY tight leash, with a Very clear mission. And do Not skimp on the number you send in. We cannot leave anyone unsupervised.

Jon posts: so, if you have a problem with these methods, well, that's your right. however keep in mind that it would however be wrong to ascribe such methods solely to the bush administration, as the techniques predate him by quite some time.

I don't ascribe these methods solely to the Bushies. I merely point out that they are lying lousy hypocrites for denying that they ordered low-level grunts to carry out these tortures, and that they are responsible for their acts of torture no matter who else may have tortured in the past. They're torturing in my name since I'm a citizen of this country, and I want it stopped, and I don't give a flying fart if it's an innocent small child or Osama Bin Laden himself, I want it stopped! And you, Jon, can take your right-wing groupthink -- if "thinking" is something you're capable of, which I doubt -- and stuff it.

A truly brilliant post by temperance proving exactly what i had claimed earlier; that many of the people here are so convinced of their own sense of intellectual superiority that anyone who disagrees with them is obviously not capable of thinking

They're just going by the evidence presented, Jon boy.

Abigail wrote, "That little Lyndie person. Who could have predicted her behavior??"

IIRC she told people before going to Iraq that she wanted vengence for 9-11.

Abigail wrote, "That little Lyndie person. Who could have predicted her behavior??"

IIRC she told people before going to Iraq that she wanted vengence for 9-11.

patience:

Very nice and spooky points, but the "various and assundry" that "bolsters the near psychotic conviction of their own correctness in the face of the obvious looming catostrophe" doesn't explain the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense.

Or if it does, the Secretary of Defense stuff is weird enough I'd almost want to try it for a day. Just for the experience.

"A truly brilliant post by temperance proving exactly what i had claimed earlier; that many of the people here are so convinced of their own sense of intellectual superiority that anyone who disagrees with them is obviously not capable of thinking"

Jon,
Why the personal attacks? Where is the argument?

interesting how you accuse me of personal attacks yet say nothing of temperance. i made the claim that many of you on this board are so convinced of your rightness that you cannot even imagine that any of intelligence could ever think otherwise. A controversial stance, but one that has occured time and again through history. And this somehow is a personal attack while someone claiming that i'm incapable of thought is not?

Can we drop this? I'm honestly interested in the arguments. I'm sorry for my part in making it personal.

>I wonder how much longer it will >
>take for the US to earn back the
>'moral leadership' position ceded >
>by the Bush administration's
>reckless foreign policy.

There has been a poll in Germany after the started that showed how dramatically this event changed the way Germans perceived America. Up till this point a solid majority regarded America as a role model that should be emulated. After the war started a solid majority answered that they agree that America is no longer a role model.

Since then the perceiption of the USA has darkedned further mixed in with some "Schadenfreude" that even America is not save from falling from grace and overshadowed by some real fear for when this fall is going to come to a halt.

This is a personal exposition from an American who has long been against the war and Bush. Please don't think I'm saying this to excuse myself. Quite the opposite is true. What truly upsets me about the arguments here is that, in fact, there *is* something positive about them that should be encouraged, not drowned in ideological sniping or personal attacks.

I'm sorry, that came out accusatory, and it wasn't meant to be. I'll try to be more clear. On *both* sides of the fence, above, are examples of people (Americans and others) stating that they are in the process of re-examining their positions based on new information coming to light. Others are realizing that their long-held concern has been correct, but that they have not matched actions to their worries or even their words.

Yes, some may have started from (or even remain in) an ideological position you dislike, or detest. However, I'd like to exhort all here to remember one thing - unless we all *think*, and *pay attention*, and examine not only the 'evidence' and 'information' coming from media and other sources, but examine our own thoughts, feelings and ideas on the matter - then we've already lost what may be the most important fight. That is the fight to remain the United States of America - not a 'morally superior America,' not a 'feared America,' not a 'responsible' America, or even a 'secure America.' It is fairly clear that all of those things have fallen away in the minds of many people here and around the world.

But what made the United States wonderful - and what has made many other nations wonderful institutions in the past, I'm not claiming we invented this - is the capability to *LEARN* and *CHANGE.*

Even if you think that the Bush administration is on the right course, even if you think that this is a 'left wing circle jerk,' I ask you (as an American) to try, please, to retain your sense of civic responsibility. The one that our country's founders had in such great quantity. NEVER ALLOW YOUR GOVERNMENT TO THINK IT IS ABOVE ITS PEOPLE. Never allow those *in* the U.S. Government to think that they are 'above' the rules which placed them there.

After all, if the liberals are wrong, then truth will out. Why? Because you, as a supporter of the administration, should be carefully watching *everything* with firm attention. Watch the left, and watch the right. Watch the press. Don't take anything for granted. THINK. If the liberals (yes, I am one) are in fact trying to take down an administration unjustly, then LOOK AT EVERYTHING and try to prove it. Don't try to tear down the liberals for trying it; they're doing their *JOB*. The attempted impeachment of Bill Clinton was something that infuriated the liberal establishment, such as it is in this country, but I (personally) feel an opportunity was missed, in the fury - the chance to try to rise above 'not-me' and reach 'us.' Whatever we thought about the attempt to impeach Clinton, more of us should not have tried to counterbash the Right by claiming they were simply playing 'partisan politics.' That's their role as citizens and members of a party. Our job was, and we blew it, to try to take our opponents to the table and say (essentially) "Okay. You have these things you say have been done that are wrong. We want to sit down here now, and define what, really, would qualify as impeachable - what was breaking the law. And then, together, in teams, we need to go look for everything. If, after *that* process, we are going to deadlock on if something was right or wrong - let's at least agree to have a common view of what we can establish happened.

I'm sorry, I'm straying. I'll wrap up here shortly. I realize that the United States has some unbelievable work ahead of it to regain the trust of the rest of the world, should that be something the US decides it wants (and I'm for it). I would ask that:

- Those who are not Americans, and are watching us, urge us to take responsibility for our own nation and have real civil oversight. If after the paroxysm of democracy that is surely coming, you feel we have not gone far enough - that's your opinion. Tell us then. In the meantime, whenever an American tells you in open forum that they are having doubts, or changing their mind - don't bash us for where we started out. Help us learn to change our minds, to strive for the truth. There are good people in this country; I (PERSONAL BELIEF) think that most people here are simply average humans making their choices influenced by their surroundings, and are not 'evil.' I don't even really know what those are, in truth, good and evil. But I do know that I'd rather be in this kind of mess because I made a mistake than because I didn't try or do anything at all, and hid my head in the sand.

To all sides of the debate, liberals, conservatives - don't bash each other for our starting positions. Do whatever you can, please, to encourage everybody, on all sides, to push for full disclosure of what happened 'in our name' and for full punishments or rewards for those who deserve it. Reach out to those who tell you they are wavering in their 'faith' or their commitment to one side - because those are the ones who are *thinking.* Those are the people performing their duty as citizens. They are paying attention and accepting data.

Not everyone is 'swinging' of course. To the liberals who are digging in their heels - it doesn't *matter* if you were right earlier. It doesn't make you better. It makes you uniquely positioned to try to convince the other side that these flutterings they feel are the right thing. Even if a conservative or neocon tells you that they are flatly behind the President, that's their right. Ask them if they are interested in a full disclosure of what happened at Abu Ghraib. Convince them that while loyalty to the President is not a bad thing in itself, loyalty to a President, or a nation, or a person *without the acceptance of constant new information and the analysis of that information* is indeed a bad thing - it is an obsession, not a position.

I'm sorry to go on so long. I thank everyone here who has made an effort to ensure that the facts come out - and everyone here who is doing what they feel is best for the United States, so long as they are doing it because they feel their own position, viewed in a vacuum (i.e. not compared to the other side) is a 'right' or 'proper' one.

We're never all going to agree on what we should do. That's what makes us American. Let's try to agree that we need to be Americans, and that we need to take up the reins and responsibility that our founders and our predecessors and our teachers, who after all came from all over the world, left in our hands.

Thank you.

Custodian, you need to take a side... NOW. You need to start some inflamatory talk to get everyone riled. It's the only way.. it's now the American way. Get with the program and offend somebody with a cold, narrow statement.

have you written your congressman?

have you gone to washington and protested?

Jon, have you opened your eyes?

anyone who tries to diminish in any way the actions (those 'publicly' observable alone) of this adminisatration -- never mind any other -- must be in denial, or themselves on the fringe of illness.

People like you and I, tortured... stripped naked, nipped at by large dogs, powerless and frightened, raped, beaten, sleep-deprived, pain-inflicted...

Get over yourselves. Act or shuttup. Open your eyes, or go away. This nation is becoming the new Nazi Germany, an enemy of the world. During the rise of the Nazi party, the *majority* of good Germans, who didn't subscribe to Hitler's madness, who were cowed and intimidated, remained silent. We see what resulted.

It was their son's who died in the mad wars that followed...

It was their children who tortured and flicked the switches on the ovens at Auschwitz. Do you believe our nation incapable of such horror? Would you think the Jews of Isreal incapable, knowing what they suffered, and yet, witness how they behave toward the Palestinians in the name of "National Security"...

Wake up. Smell the blood and treachery. Today, that is the reality.

Why, with such crimes paraded before us, can this president still be in office, without a public threat of impeachment? Because, just like in 1939, we are in deep, terrible trouble. Only this time, it's our nation...

Patriot act... "Homeland" (a word not institutionally used by any western country since Nazi Germany), "with us or against us", "it is unpatriotic to question the president in a time of war"...

all repeats of history.

Stand up. Shout where it can be heard. Make yourself known, and sacrifice without fear. That's my opinion. That's patriotism. That's what this nation needs to return from this horrible brink.

peace.....

I'm reading "Why I'm Not A Christian" by Bertrand Russel for the first time and the first 40 pages made me almost cry...we are a country run by sadistic religous nut bags...How can we still be this far behind???

Who is dumming us down? Makes me want to start reading those tin- foil hat guys talking about reptials.

The war to Iraq was nothing but racists blowing off steam??

Does it come down to...

Wanting the Iraqi [insurgents] freedom fighting patriots to succeed???

Are the neo-cons jealous that the Muslims have kept their family values together and we have not ? What is that called?

Custodian,

I found your post above uplifting and an encouragement of dialogue. Me, being from Sweden, thinks dialouge is what is missing in the US today. Instead of dialouge there is a profound mistrust between and demonization of between people of opposing views. How has it come to this? And the people thrives on it. Watching America recently (the past 3 years) has almost been like watching a fight to the death between to combattants in the old crumbling arena of the ancient Colloseum.

If you, within the US, dismiss each other in that pack-mentality it's no wonder how the oppinions of the UN and Europe similarily is seen as irrelevant. Not to mention how easily most of you thrived on that French-bashing.

You give me hope though, seamingly reaching out.

Yet, the comment

"We're never all going to agree on what we
should do. That's what makes us American.
Let's try to agree that we need to be
Americans"

disappointed me.

What makes you American is the fact that you are a citizen of the US. Full stop. The fact that we all have different opinions makes us human.

Your contention "we need to be Americans" is a form of nationalism that alienates the rest of the world. Letting go of that would go a long way in improving relations.

SixFoot, there's a difference between a comment and a personal attack. For example, " And you, Jon, can take your right-wing groupthink -- if "thinking" is something you're capable of, which I doubt -- and stuff it." is a personal attack, just as is "They're just going by the evidence presented, Jon boy", whereas "A truly brilliant post by temperance proving exactly what i had claimed earlier" most assuredly is not.

It is a bit disheartening to see how diverging arguments -- even when civil, clear, logical, and aptly articulated -- are met by spitting and shrieking and yes, smug moralizing.

Get it into you heads, my friends:
1. What you've seen is nasty but not torture.
2. There is no way to avoid at least some of it in war (unless you're willing to lose your people -- and the war itself.)
3. No matter how many detainees have been "abused", we are ten orders of magnitude better than anyone else would be in a similar situation. I especially like the european/French "smug moralizing" as I was just finishing Paul Aussaresses' memoir before the "abuse" reports surfaced. I also recommend to peruse Alexander del Valle's articles (http://www.alexandredelvalle.com/)

"3. No matter how many detainees have been "abused", we are ten orders of magnitude better than anyone else would be in a similar situation."

(a) Without knowing the counterfactual, this is pure speculation.
(b) Since the Bush administration deliberately maneuvered itself into that "situation" (I suppose you are referring to the war in Iraq), it bears the full responsibility for both positive and negative consequences of their decision. Therefore, it does not matter at all whether anybody else would have behaved better or worse in those circumstances.

Blitzkried,

1. I agree with you on some points. For instance, I don't think stress postures and being subjected to loud music qualifies as torture. But, what you or I think doesn't really matter. Consider: a). According to the Geneva Conventions, such treatment of prisoners *is* torture. b). The U.S. agreed to abide by the Conventions, thereby adopting the Conventions' definitions as its own. I draw the conclusion that what was done at Abu Ghraib qualifies as torture according to the definitions the U.S freely choose to accept. Anyone who authorized violating the Conventions is guilty of war crimes.

2. Again, I sympathize with your view-point, but just because war crimes are inevitable, doesn't mean the U.S. gov't is justified in authorizing them. Quite the contrary, we are duty-bound to try even harder to avoid them.

As for the implication that torturing/abusing prisoners is sometimes necessary to save lives or win wars, I don't believe your argument has merit. I intend to join the Air Force after I graduate college. If I'm ever a POW being tortured by my captors, I'm going to lie. Every chance I get. Especially if I know my lies will endanger enemy forces. Any Iraqis we've detained who have useful information probably feel the same way. Torture doesn't necessarily get good intel.

3. Again, I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong. We may very well *be* "ten orders of magnitude better that anyone else wold be in a similar situation." (I wouldn't know.) But, that is not how we choose to evaluate the morality of our behavior in this country. Just being more moral than any other country is not enough when you're American. When you're an American, your actions have to pass muster according to the Constitution. The situation at Abu Ghraib is not in keeping with our Constitution or with the treaties (the Geneva Conventions being a prominent example) we've signed.

P.S. I can be a "smug moralist" at times though I try not to be. I hope I haven't offended you.

Mike-

I accept your criticism. Let me reiterate, and this time try to say more clearly what I mean. We're never going to agree on what we need to do; if we did, we wouldn't be Americans. What makes us Americans (in the strict sense, in the context of our Constitution) is that in the end, we will (I hope) take action as a nation without instead tearing that nation apart. Accepting the outcome of the system, and rather than resorting to evading the system, working to change it within the rules, if necessary. We can do that; the writers of our Constitution provided for it. The Constitution itself can be changed, or even nullified, if the proper set of rules is followed. Sure, it's not *easy* - but that's the point.

During the last election, even though the situation in Florida made me hideously angry, I remain proud of my countrymen that in the end, the matter was decided by the courts, as the Constitution instructs, rather than by force of arms or the loudest voice. I may not agree with the decision of that court, nor may many of my fellow citizens, but the reason we are still citizens of an existing nation is because we abided with its decision and instead of declaring the system null and void, went to work on making sure the *next* time would go more smoothly.

We had no real way of knowing what the winner of that contest would get us into; and hence, any attempt to remove the official winner of that contest from office at that time based on *predicted* behavior would not even be justifiable to me.

As for your other point, no,