The election coming in November is crucial, and not just for the United States, but for the world; all sides agree on that. Will America stand against terror, or will we step back, and leave it to the UN? Are we a sovereign nation or a vassal of a global government dominated by thugs, thieves, and spineless bureaucrats?
Based on the above, I'm sure you know which side of the question I come down on. I don't like or trust the UN. They're remarkably ineffective, woefully inefficient, amazingly corrupt, and fundamentally inept. I am convinced that if it is left up to them, the war on terror will end with the terrorists victorious. America will go from being the last superpower to an impotent supplier of men, material, and money to support whatever wild ass scheme the UN comes up with.
Based on what he's said, this is the future John Kerry wants for America. He wants America to be a part of the global community, not a leader of it. He envisions a community of nations, working together to solve global problems, led by a community of equals. It's a philosophy as attractive and ultimately empty as Rodney King's lament, "Can't we all just get along?" It presupposes that the UN's best interests and the US's best interests will coincide, and that when they do not, that the UN's should be paramount. It assumes that the UN is somehow better equipped to act in the best interests of the United States than we are. Ultimately, it assumes that the UN is actually a body capable of world governance, an assumption clearly not borne out by its past record. It's an idea that runs counter to everything we know about human nature, and the history of man.
But this is the ultimate result of a vote for John Kerry, making it clear that my vote in November should be, must be cast to prevent him from winning the election.
On the other hand, there's this quote from Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. we're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience.
American torture of Iraqi prisoners.
And from the sounds of it right now, it wasn't an isolated occurence either. At the very least, the organized abuse and humiliation of the detainees appears to have been a tactic ordered, or at least encouraged, by military intelligence officers as part of an aggressive interrogation technique. Whether those tactics, distasteful as they may be, rise to the level of torture is arguable. But Rumsfeld and Graham have told us that it gets worse, including rape and murder. Whether these additional acts were carried out with the same level of direction and approval is unknown right now. What is also unknown is how widespread these acts were.
But here's what I do know. The abuse at Al Ghraib could not have been the work of a few, isolated soldiers. There was too much of it, and it was too systemic. At the very least, the base commander knew what was happening, and more than likely, the directives came from even higher up. The suggestion that this abuse was limited to a few soldiers under the command of military intelligence officers or contractors while possible is not very likely. Somebody gave orders for these prisoners to be abused as a part of their interrogation, and that somebody needs to be held accountable.
More problematic is the admission of actual torture, rape and murder. It is more probable that these acts are the result of a few bad apples, but in the current environment, I can't make that assumption without a full, transparent investigation. If there's any hint of anything less than full exposure of the extent of the problem, then the Bush administration will lose all credibility, and deservedly so.
And if that happens, I will not be able to vote for him in November.
Even if that means that Kerry wins, with all that I believe that entails, how could I vote for a President that covers up or condones torture?
Posted by Rich at May 10, 2004 2:00 AM | TrackBackHave you read the whole report? Smash has a link to it over at his blog. It seems that "setting favorable conditions" was recommended by MG Miller. The really disturbing thing is that there are more pictures than we know about, including videos. Secretary Rumsfeld is trying to quash them, but I think he should publicize them. There's nothing Americans hate worse than being lied to.
There is no excuse for the kind of behavior exhibited by those soldiers. They should make small rocks out of big rocks for the next few years and then dishonorably discharged; the courts martials should take place in Baghdad and televised to the world.
Oh yes, the soldiers and sailors lauded in the report for their good service (at times disobeying unlawful orders) should be given awards and promotions. I'd also like to know who leaked this to the press. They (assuming there's more than one) also deserve whatever reward is appropriate.
Posted by: Noneya on May 10, 2004 4:51 PM