First came Seymour Hersh’s article, which links the prison abuse at Abu Rhraib to a Pentagon strategy against al Qaeda.
Now there’s this:
By Jan. 25, 2002, according to a memo obtained by NEWSWEEK, it was clear that Bush had already decided that the Geneva Conventions did not apply at all, either to the Taliban or Al Qaeda. In the memo, which was written to Bush by Gonzales, the White House legal counsel told the president that Powell had “requested that you reconsider that decision.” Gonzales then laid out startlingly broad arguments that anticipated any objections to the conduct of U.S. soldiers or CIA interrogators in the future. “As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war,” Gonzales wrote to Bush. “The nature of the new war places a high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians.” Gonzales concluded in stark terms: “In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva’s strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions.”
It’s not yet clear who planted the seeds which lead to Iraqi prison porn. But if you believe this was merely a handful of troops engaging in frat house fun, I’ve got some Niger yellowcake to sell you.
It’s interesting that under the administration’s “war on terror” paradigm, basic human dignity is now a quaint notion. This is all typical of what we have seen on a number of policy fronts. The administration declares itself not bound to old, pesky standards. They obfuscate lines of authority so when things get screwed up they can simply assert plausible deniability, benign neglect, or bureaucratic disarray (thanks to Clinton) so no one at the policy level ever gets held accountable. And thanks to a media which is generally unwilling to take stories to a degree of complexity beyond the picture-level, the ineptness continues.
Greetings,
What leaves me scratching my head is that the media and American public seem surprised at these allegations…
I mean, from 9/11 on, we had a president who wanted bin Laden “dead or alive” and “would do anything it takes to bring down al Qaeda” and the numerous chest-thumping comments about Hussein, closing with the “bring it on” challenge to terrorists. This is a man and an administration that fought like people did in the old west, above the law and an ‘anything goes’ attitude to bring about “justice.”
I can just imagine that Bush watched “young guns” every night during Afghanistan and the pre-“Mission Accomplished” phase of the Iraqi war. (He undoubtedly watched “Tombstone” every night after that point.)
Then recall he argued AGAINST the International Criminal Court, and fought to make Americans immune from being tried for war crimes. It is clear that with this type of mindset and setup in the international theatre, there was nothing to stop him from going as far as we have seen. And I am certain we will see even worse things come out in future weeks. Why? Because all these acts were wrapped up in a philosophy of pre-emptive war, and an anything goes attitude to achieve vistory. How could anything less than torture and murder and rape to achieve those goals be expected?
The only people this should be shocking to ought to be ditto-head conservatives like Rush, but he seems to think it is all fun and games. Funny how little life means to the far right……