Townhall.com Dinesh D’Souza February 26, 2007
HBO’s documentary “The Ghosts of Abu Ghraib,” aired a few days ago, is yet another attempt to use the scandal to portray the Bush administration as soft on torture. Conservatives, meanwhile, continue to minimize the significance of what happened there. Some characterize Abu Ghraib as no big deal, what James Schlesinger termed “Animal House on the night shift.” Others defende Abu Ghraib as a way to get valuable information about potential terrorist attacks. Rush Limbaugh claimed that “maybe the people who ordered this are pretty smart” because, as an interrogation technique, “it sounds pretty effective to me.”
Throughout the Muslim world, Abu Ghraib was viewed very differently. To see why, we need to take a closer look at the scandal. Fortunately we have a detailed picture of what happened, both from the military’s 500-page report and from the trials of Private Lynndie England and Private Charles Graner, the two main figures involved. After marrying at age 19 “on a whim,” as she put it, England left her husband and enlisted in the military. There she met Graner, who was fresh from a divorce in which his wife had taken out three protective orders against him.
Lt. Col. Steven Jordan, the former head of the interrogation center at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, left, with legal counsel Capt. Samuel Spitzberg, arrives at a military court in this Oct. 20, 2006 file photo, at Fort George G. Meade in Maryland. Jordan, the only U.S. military officer charged with a crime in the Abu Ghraib scandal will be court-martialed on eight charges, including cruelty and maltreatment of prisoners, the Army said Friday Jan. 26, 2007. (AP Photo/ Steve Ruark, File) Shortly before they went to Iraq, England and Graner partied together with another soldier friend in Virginia Beach. “They drank heavily,” the New York Times reports, and when the other soldier passed out, “Private Graner and Private England took turns taking photographs of each other exposing themselves over his head.” In Iraq, the two began an affair which they continued even though both were warned that their sexual trysts on the night shift violated military rules.
. . . more
Abu Ghraib was not a harmless prank cooked up by two low-level soldiers. It was the logical culmination of an official policy originating from the President himself.
We know for a fact that there were a series of memos written by the President’s top legal advisors reintepreting the restrictions of the Geneva Convenntion more loosely to accomodate a much wider range of interogation techniques.
We know for a fact that the Bush administration created a new classification for prisoners, “unlawful enemy combatants,” a category that does not exist in international law, which the administration said was not covered by the Geneva Conventions.
We know for a fact that new interogation techniques were developed specifically to exploit the religious sensibilities of Muslims, like forcing Muslim men to strip naked and be humiliated by female American soldiers.
We know for a fact that these techniques were first used, and developed at secret CIA interogation centers throughout the world, and at Guantanomo Bay, before being used in Iraq.
We know for a fact that in addition to the national guardsmen assigned to Abu Ghraib, there were CIA interogators and civilian contractors who employed such techniques.
We know for a fact that the during the later half of 2003 as attacks against US military personnel increased dramatically, top military officers were under intense pressure to find “actionable intelligence” on the sources of the attacks.
We know for a fact that, as result of military deployment decisions made by the Secretary of defense, the prison at Abu Ghraib was severely understaffed and that it’s personel were poorly supervised.
For more information read “The Road to Abu Ghraib, The biggest scandal of the Bush administration began at the top“, by military law expert and Iraq war veteran Phillip Carter.
Dinish D’Souza’s article is a despicable piece of misinformation and I am particularly dismayed to read it on a web site carrying the name of my faith.
The pictures are only a little part of the story. Many ordinary soldiers ended up there and discovered that they were now prison guards — with no training whatsoever. Some of the American military units were careful in the Iraqis they selected to send there, but in particular the 4th ID used Abu Ghraib as a dumping ground for people who were indiscriminately picked up off the street — as reported, in some cases emptying out whole villages.
In some cases family members of suspected insurgents were captured and held as hostages until the suspect turned himself in. But even then in many cases the family members were not released, because of the large number of prisoners there and the widespread mismanagement of the place.
At one time the place had around 6 to 7 thousand detainees, guarded by a staff that was way to small for that many people. (I don’t remember the exact numbers, but at Guantanamo the ratio of detainees to guards was something like 1 to 1. At Abu Ghraib it was more like 10 to 1.)
People like Dinesh D’Souza or Rush Limbaugh, who are apologists or even cheerleaders for that cluster ____ in Abu Ghraib should have been sent there for six months, chained to a wall, and beaten with batons a few times. Then these nut jobs might sing a different tune.
Oh, and speaking of divorce and perversion, it’s interesting that D’Souza doesn’t mention that the thrice-divorced, childless, and drug-addicted family values advocate Rush Limbaugh was caught last year returning from a trip to Central America with a bottle of Viagra in his suitcase. Any idea why a single man would travel to the Dominican Republic with Viagra? When liberals do things like that, it’s a sign of the end of Western Civilization. When Rush does it, it’s Ok, because . . . you know, he’s . . . you know . . .
It was the logical culmination of an official policy originating from the President himself…..
Pure slander. Dean’s post is a despicable piece of misinformation and I am particularly dismayed to read it on a web site carrying the name of my faith…
Note that when President Bush signed the bill containing the McCain amendment outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.
Bush could bypass new torture ban, Bush could bypass new torture ban
Waiver right is reserved
Boston Globe, January 2006
Phillip Carter says it better than I can:
.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0411.carter.html
Christopher writes: “Pure slander.”
Actually, that would be libel, not slander.
Unfortunately, it’s basically true. While it is true that Bush was not personally sodomizing Iraqi prisoners with lightsticks, he did approve of the Gitmo interrogation techniques that were then exported to Abu Ghraib.
“Rumsfeld pointed out that Gitmo was producing good intel. So he directed Steve Cambone, his under secretary for intelligence, to send Gitmo commandant Miller to Iraq to improve what they were doing out there. . . . In Baghdad in September 2003, Miller delivered a blunt message to Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who was then in charge of the 800th Military Police Brigade running Iraqi detentions. According to Karpinski, Miller told her that the prison would thenceforth be dedicated to gathering intel. (Miller says he simply recommended that detention and intelligence commands be integrated.) On Nov. 19, Abu Ghraib was formally handed over to tactical control of military-intelligence units.”
“. . . U.S. officials continued to say they didn’t know until mid-January. But Red Cross officials had alerted the U.S. military command in Baghdad at the start of November. The Red Cross warned explicitly of MPs’ conducting “acts of humiliation such as [detainees’] being made to stand naked … with women’s underwear over the head, while being laughed at by guards, including female guards, and sometimes photographed in this position.” Karpinski recounts that the military-intel officials there regarded this criticism as funny.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4989438/site/newsweek/
“According to interviews with several past and present American intelligence officials, the Pentagon’s operation, known inside the intelligence community by several code words, including Copper Green, encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq. A senior C.I.A. official, in confirming the details of this account last week, said that the operation stemmed from Rumsfeld’s long-standing desire to wrest control of America’s clandestine and paramilitary operations from the C.I.A.”
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/040524fa_fact
These things were part and parcel of the “special access program” in operation at Abu Ghraib, run by military intelligence and various civilian interrogators of unclear affiliation. While the abuses documented in the infamous photos were not an authorized part of the program, when you create an ambiguous situation with unclear rules and untrained soldiers, you create a situation that is ripe for abuse. That abuse happened should have been no surprise to the administration.
Christopher: “Dean’s post is a despicable piece of misinformation and I am particularly dismayed to read it on a web site carrying the name of my faith…”
Your faith . . . I’ve never been able to figure out exactly what your faith is. It seems to be some version of Christianity, but with the ordinary compassion surgically removed, except in the case of fetus-people. Does your faith have an official name, or is it an independent kind of deal?
Well, the abuses happened, and that is deplorable. Though war itself is an evil thing, we should try to do it in the least cruel manner possible when it is ‘necessary’. I am sorry, but I see this kind of ‘win the war at all costs’ mentality as part of the skewed Amercian vision that we are the saviors of the world. If we felt that we were just one nation among many, perhaps we would act differently.
What about D’Souza’s point that the moral corruption of Western society contributes to Islamic anger? This is the real focus of the piece. The left aids and abets the corruption D’Souza argues, while the right (my point, not D’Souza’s) excoriates D’Souza for making it. The reasons vary, but most on the right argue it slips too easily into dhimmitude. Any truth to D’Souza’s point?
Fr. Hans asks: “What about D’Souza’s point that the moral corruption of Western society contributes to Islamic anger? This is the real focus of the piece.”
That’s his point to a certain degree. To that extent that it’s true, it is a disturbing fact about Islam. In other words, if you sweep some innocent guy off the street, throw him in prison for a few months, and administer various beatings, that’s Ok. But if you do all that AND put women’s panties on his head, then that’s an atrocity . . . Well, whatever.
But D’Souza eventually does get around to his main point:
“In one crucial respect, however, the Muslim critics were wrong. Contrary to their assertions, Abu Ghraib did not reflect the shared values of America, it reflected the sexual immodesty of liberal America. Lynndie England and Charles Graner were two wretched individuals from Red America who were trying to act out the fantasies of Blue America. Casting aside all traditional notions of decency, propriety and morality, they simply lived by the code of self-fulfillment. If it feels good, it must be right. This was bohemianism, West Virginia-style.”
The conservative writers always have to get around to the “conservatives good, liberals bad” thing. It just took D’Souza a few extra paragraphs to get there.
D’Souza continued:
“To his credit, President Bush made no attempt to defend Abu Ghraib . . .”
To his credit?? Like understanding that this is terribly wrong is a major moral accomplishment for the president??
” . . . firmly asserting that it didn’t represent America. What he should have said is that it didn’t represent the values of conservative America. In reality Abu Ghraib did reflect the values of a debauched liberalism run amok. These values are ruining America’s image in the traditional world. Many ordinary Muslims were scandalized to see how some Americans behave, and how other Americans who should know better try to cover these disgraceful things up. In minimizing Abu Ghraib, some conservatives became cheap apologists for liberal debauchery.
This is his real point. Conservatives good, liberals bad.
When I read this stuff at the end of the article, I was stunned by how ridiculous it all is. In effect, he says that when anyone engages in some kind of sexual immodesty or perversion, that person — whatever his political persuasion — in essence engages in “liberal” behavior. I find it monumentally ironic that D’Souza mentions Rush Limbaugh in his opening paragraph — as if Rush weren’t famous for a debauched lifestyle. The sexual sins of conservatives are well-known. Most recently we have Ted Haggard, who takes drugs and hires a male prostitute.
D’Souza sets up a situation in which liberals can’t win. To the extent that liberals act morally, then they are acting in accordance with conservative values. To the extent that conservatives act immorally, they are acting in accordance with liberal values.
The sexual humiliation at Abu Ghraib did not originate in a liberal desire to propagate perversion. While many of the things documented in the Abu Ghraib photos were not specifically authorized by the “program,” sexual humiliation was used as an official tool to break the detainees. Seymore Hersh notes that
“The notion that Arabs are particularly vulnerable to sexual humiliation became a talking point among pro-war Washington conservatives in the months before the March, 2003, invasion of Iraq. One book that was frequently cited was “The Arab Mind,” a study of Arab culture and psychology, first published in 1973 by Raphael Patai, a cultural anthropologist who taught at, among other universities, Columbia and Princeton, and who died in 1996. The book includes a twenty-five-page chapter on Arabs and sex, depicting sex as a taboo vested with shame and repression. . . . The Patai book, an academic told me, was “the bible of the neocons on Arab behavior.” In their discussions, he said, two themes emerged—’one, that Arabs only understand force and, two, that the biggest weakness of Arabs is shame and humiliation.’ . . . It was thought that some prisoners would do anything—including spying on their associates—to avoid dissemination of the shameful photos to family and friends.”
Sexual humiliation was also used on the detainees at Guantanamo:
“She started to unbutton her pants and reached and put her hands in her pants and then started to circle around the detainee. And when she had her hands in her pants, apparently she used something to put what appeared to be menstrual blood on her hand, but in fact was ink,” says Saar.
“When she circled around the detainee, she pulled out her hand, which was red, and said, ‘I’m actually menstruating right now, and I’m touching you. Does that please your God? Does that please Allah?’ And then he kind of got pent up and shied away from her, and she then took the ink and wiped it on his face, and said, ‘How do you like that?’ [The official military report stated that she wiped it on his arm.]
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/28/60minutes/main691602.shtml
Other techniques were also used:
“Detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were shackled to the floor in fetal positions for more than 24 hours at a time, left without food and water, and allowed to defecate on themselves, an FBI agent who said he witnessed such abuse reported in a memo to supervisors, according to documents released yesterday.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14936-2004Dec20.html
As I’ve said before, many of these things were not specifically authorized, but came about as a result of having ambiguous rules combined with other authorized aggressive techniques. This creates a situation in which it is not clear what is or is not authorized:
“The documents also make it clear that some personnel at Guantanamo Bay believed they were relying on authority from senior officials in Washington to conduct aggressive interrogations.”
These are the things that D’Souze should be concerned about, rather than trying to stick it to the liberals. There is no reason to “rethink” Abu Ghraib; the facts of the case are clear and well-known, and it is unfortunate but true that they do not paint a very pleasant picture of various officials in the Bush administration. The difference between me and someone such as D’Souza is that I don’t think these things show that conservatism itself is inherently defective or immoral. While individual conservatives can act immorally or implement immoral policies, that tells us nothing about conservatism itself. It would be nice if conservatives could extend the same understanding to liberals.
Liberal is an imprecise and inaccurate term. D’Souza would have been more accurate to use the term secular. To use the term “liberal” suggests if a person favors Keynesian economics, for example, or government action to protect the environment, he or she must also be sexually immodest and promiscuous. Likewise there are a lot of people who would describe themselves as economic conservatives or libertarians, who also want a minimum of government control over the personal private lives of citizens, including their sexual behavior and orientation. So when D’Souza uses the term liberal, he is using it dishonestly, to conflate “liberal” beliefs in one sphere of behavior with “liberal” beliefs on an entriely different set of issues.
Certainly the perceived moral depravity of the West is a major contibuting factor to Islamic fundamentalist anger at the West. Anger at Western sexual mores can be found throughout the writings of Egyptian Sayyib Qutb, considered the father of modern islamic fundamentalism, and a founter of the Egyptian Islamic Brotherhood.
Is this the man who inspired Bin Laden? Robert Irwin on Sayyid Qutb, the father of modern Islamist fundamentalism
Many conservative Christians and Jews are also repelled by the lax sexual mores of modern society. The difference is that the great majority of conservative Christians and Jews have repudiated violence, and the repression of women. It is an indication of how Islamic fundmentalisms extreme nature that its anger against the west has completely overwhelmed any moral proscription it may have had against harming innocent human life.
What about D’Souza’s point that the moral corruption of Western society contributes to Islamic anger?
I don’t put that much stock in it because the sexual morality of the Muslim world is quite famous. From the officially sanctioned polygamy, to the unofficial yet very widespread homosexuality, pedophilia, and incest (fathers often use their little boys as mistresses) the term “hypocritical” comes to mind. In fact, though it is very hard to study, sexual deviance is probably much more widespread in Muslim society than it is in eve our own decaying civilization.
while the right (my point, not D’Souza’s) excoriates D’Souza for making it.
I don’t think so (in general). What is condemned is the left’s making something of it that it is not (Dean‘s slander being exhibit A ;)…
There is a more accepting attitude regarding torture among a segment of American society since September 11th, and a segment of the political and cultural estabblishment that has sought to justify it. Jane Mayer writes:
WHATEVER IT TAKES, The New Yorker, Feb 19, 2007
Note # 12:
Little substance here. Long before “24” there was Rambo, etc. I believe most Americans support interrogation techniques that are “aggressive” (i.e. more than asking nicely) but do not cross over into torture. Actually, with chemical interrogation (i.e. “truth serum”) there simply is no need for physical coercion (still need psychological however). That said, to many (most?) on the left even imprisonment is “torture” so the word is all but meaningless in today’s context.
What any of this has to do with Abu Graib I don’t have a clue, unless you were trying to change the subject…;)
This is simply anecdotal evidence with little substance behind it. Once can take excerpts from available information and spin it around to suit any argument. In my opinion (also based on anecdotal evidence) the unethical and twisted moral attitudes of the soliders has more to do with the decay of ethics and morality (promoted and championed by the radical left and radical liberals) of the mainstream secularized culture (evident in our public schools) rather than one show.
Actually, if you want less anecdotal evidence, compare 12 years of intellectual and moral decadence in public schools 5-6 hours a day x 5 days a week x 9 months a year x 12 years vs. 22 broadcasts of 45 minute long episodes. Even 10 seasons of “24” cannot overcome the garbage and corruption that pumped 24×7 in our mainstream culture, with public education leading the charge.
Mr. Banescu: You write that the decay of ethics and morality of the mainstream secularized culture is promoted and championed by the radical left and radical liberals. Yet it has been the Republican Congress, and the Bush administration that has most aggressively sought to deregulate the media. At one time media outlets operating on the public airways were required to devote a certain percentage of their time to educational and public service content, and no one company was allowed to dominate to much in any one market. These requirements have been pushed back by the Republicans and the right, who at the same time have campaigned to remove funding for public television and public radio, outlets which provide much more uplifting content.
Furthermore, who do you think profits from pornography – it’s large corporations like Viacom, who have worked hand in glove these last six yearsv with the previous Republican Congress.
Chris Banescu writes: “In my opinion (also based on anecdotal evidence) the unethical and twisted moral attitudes of the soliders has more to do with the decay of ethics and morality (promoted and championed by the radical left and radical liberals) of the mainstream secularized culture (evident in our public schools) rather than one show.”
A survey released in 2004 showed that soldiers in the U.S. military are more conservative and less liberal than the population as a whole:
“On other factors, the survey found that 53 percent of active-duty personnel described themselves as either “very conservative” or “conservative,” compared to 40 percent of the general population. By contrast, seven percent said they were “liberal or very liberal,” compared to 20 percent of the general population.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/ips/lobe43.html
I don’t know what kind of anecdotal evidence you’re looking at, but I think it is fair to say that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were done by soldiers who were probably conservative (and very probably not liberal), led by officers who were conservative, operating under the instructions of an administration that is (said to be) conservative. So how Abu Ghraib turns out to be the liberals’ fault is a mystery to me. I guess I was gone the day that my high school sex ed teacher taught everyone how to sodomize prisoners with light sticks.
As I’ve said before, I don’t think that Abu Ghraib tells us anything about conservatives in general. Rather, it tells us what happens when untrained soldiers have to operate under rules that are ambiguous, in a facility where it is not clear who is in charge.
But back to the “liberals.” D’Souza’s article and Chris’s comment shows that for many conservatives liberalism is really a kind of amorphous metaphysical force, not a political ideology. Liberalism is seen as this kind of poisonous gas floating around the atmosphere, and you never know where it is going to strike next. The liberal is always the fly in the conservative ointment.
The one thing you do know is that if anything bad happens, it’s because of liberals. To the extent that conservatives sin, it is only because they leave the conservative fold and engage in liberal activities. Liberals, however, don’t actually “sin,” because their entire existence is sinful. They are the living embodiment of sin, the hypostasis of sin. On those rare occasions when a liberal actually does something good, it’s not because of liberalism. Rather the occasional goodness of liberals is accidental, kind of like when a bank robber doesn’t shoot anyone only because he forgot to load his gun. The liberal is nothing more than an object of contempt and pity, forever playing Snidley Whiplash to conservative’s Dudley Do-Right.
Jim, You again present anecdotal evidence as proof. Even your own source of “empirical” data leaves me with 47% of the armed forces to support my argument. You are missing the point I was trying to make. Where are your studies showing the backgrounds and religious/political leanings of the soldiers that ordered and engaged in the abusive and immoral behaviors? That should help settle this, maybe? Don’t knock yourself out, nobody dares to point to the elephant in the room and the real issues, it’s too politically incorrect.
Honestly, what kind of soldier do you think is more likely to blindly follow orders and engage in the type of conduct we have seen: (a) a conservative and religious soldier raised in a traditional family, homeschooled or educated in a private Christian school, believes God created man and the Universe, considers human life sacred, knows our actions carry eternal consequences, and believes in objective truths and moral and ethical absolutes, or (b) a liberal, atheist soldier, who grew up without a father, educated in the sewer of public schools, believes that chaos created the Universe and man evolved from amoebas, human life is purely accidental, all truths are relative, our actions are meaningless temporal events, and that there are no moral or ethical absolutes?
Here’s a little hint to help.. Eleanor Smith, a self-described “liberal, agnostic lesbian,” who is confined to a wheelchair because of childhood polio said once: “At this point I would rather have a right-wing Christian decide my fate than an ACLU member.”
Jim, You claim that I implied that: “Liberals, however, don’t actually “sin,” because their entire existence is sinful. They are the living embodiment of sin, the hypostasis of sin.” I do NOT believe this. Liberals, conservatives, leftists, atheists, Orthodox, agnostics, etc. are human and we are called to love them and tell them the truth and hope they find their way back on the narrow road back to God and Christ. Hate the sin, not the sinner. Liberalism itself is a sin because most of its precepts are based on lies and twisting of the truth. Liberalism is evil because it distorts reality and leads many astray into personal and societal destruction. Liberalism is mostly corrupt because its most radical flavor denies His existence and devalues His creation, especially man. Liberalism is the snake oil salesman that promises freedom and comfort, but enslaves and destroys, delivering only despair.
Dean, You mean promoting and glorifying sexual promiscuity, alternative lifestyles, durg use and violence in the mainstream culture only occurred after Bush became president? Such trends were set in motion many moons. The deregulation you speak of has very little, if anything to do with the morality of the culture as a whole. Not sure all public access funding was indeed for “uplifting” content. Yes, there are many good and wholesome programs, but I have seen some awful propaganda pieces worthy of the best communist re-education camps. So just because it’s “public television” does not mean it’s exempt from bias and distortion.
You are right, Bush is not really a traditional conservative. Besides upholding the value of human life, cutting taxes, and boosting national defense, his administration has pursued many failed liberal-socialist policies. It’s indeed sad to see such an amazing opportunity to implement true conservative ideals, limited government, increased freedom, elimination of the IRS, reduced (useless and meaningless) regulation, restoration of personal rights (self-defense, ownership of land, inheritance passing), securing our borders, increasing standards, etc. etc. be wasted in the years that Bush and the Republicans were in power.
Chris, again I feel that your use of the term “liberalism” is much too broad, confusing and divisive. If you are referring to a secular, materialistic and narcisistic outlook that is completely divorced from Judeo-Christian values than I am more in agreement with your comments. I think this is what you are saying.
However the term “liberal” is an inclusive expression encompassing a wide range of issues. If we are talking about countries with repressive regimes, for example, describing a politician or movement as politically liberal would have positive connotations. Some of the views of the US Catholic Bishops, on war, or assistance to the poor, is often described as ‘liberal” Would you say that the Bishops “lead many astray into personal and societal destruction”?
An economic liberal might favor a more aggressive use of government fiscal stimulus during a recession and favor higher taxes during an economic upturn. Are you arguing that Keynesian economics “leads many astray into personal and societal destruction”? Nancy Reagan favors federal funding for stem cell research, a “liberal” position. Is Nancy Reagan leading “many astray into personal and societal destruction”?
There is, in fact, only a small minority of Americans who regard themselves as completely in agreement with right-wing or the left-wing positions on every issue. The majority of Americans are liberal on some issues and conservative on others. So it bothers me to hear people, like some of those radio talk show hatemongers, use language that is needlessly broad, divisive and antagonistic and has the effect of demonizing people and turning us against each other. As Christians we should try to avoid that kind of behavior.
Chris writes: ” You again present anecdotal evidence as proof. Even your own source of “empirical” data leaves me with 47% of the armed forces to support my argument.”
I would say that it’s a a probabilistic argument. If around 7 percent of soldiers describe themselves as liberal or very liberal, it is unlikely that all of the abusers turned out to be liberals. In fact, in an interview, Joseph Darby, the soldier who first blew the whistle on Abu Ghraib, had this to say about Charles Grainer, one of the soldiers “featured” in many of the photos, and currently serving a ten-year prison sentence for his role:
“Or Charles Graner. He and I got along, but we weren’t friends. Graner is one of those guys, he’s got an overpowering aura about him. People just like him. But if you see the other side, you understand that he’s not someone you want to get too close to. He’s manipulative. He has multiple personalities. He can be this religious guy, talking about God and the way things are supposed to be done, but he’s also got this very, very dark, evil side. We were talking in Hilla one time, before we got to Abu Ghraib. I’d been walking around smoking a cigarette, and he was working the gate to our compound, so I was talking to him for like ten minutes, and he was telling me about when he thought his wife was cheating on him. He said that he found himself across the street from their house, up on a hill, with a loaded rifle trained on the door, just waiting for them to come out. I said, “What happened?” and he said, “They never came out.”
http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_4785&pageNum=3
Chris: “You are missing the point I was trying to make. Where are your studies showing the backgrounds and religious/political leanings of the soldiers that ordered and engaged in the abusive and immoral behaviors? That should help settle this, maybe? Don’t knock yourself out, nobody dares to point to the elephant in the room and the real issues, it’s too politically incorrect.”
I don’t think there are any such studies. In the absence of such studies I go with the probabilities, based on the known characteristics of soldiers. Sure, for all I know maybe all the soldiers involved in the abuse were Harvard graduates or Rastafarians. It just isn’t very likely.
Chris: “Honestly, what kind of soldier do you think is more likely to blindly follow orders and engage in the type of conduct we have seen: (a) a conservative and religious soldier raised in a traditional family, homeschooled or educated in a private Christian school, believes God created man and the Universe, considers human life sacred, knows our actions carry eternal consequences, and believes in objective truths and moral and ethical absolutes, or (b) a liberal, atheist soldier, who grew up without a father, educated in the sewer of public schools, believes that chaos created the Universe and man evolved from amoebas, human life is purely accidental, all truths are relative, our actions are meaningless temporal events, and that there are no moral or ethical absolutes?”
I suppose soldier (b) also spits on the floor and belches at meals.
I don’t think things are that simple. For example, many people knew about the situation at Abu Ghraib, but the only one who reported it was Joseph Darby, and I haven’t heard anything to indicate that he is a particularly religious person.
The issue is what happens when soldiers — conservative or liberal — are placed in a situation in which the Geneva Convention protections do not apply, but it is not clear what protections DO apply — a situation in which the untrained “prison guards” are told to “soften up” prisoners for interrogation — a situation in which sexual humiliation or the threat thereof is seen as a tool for breaking down the resistance of prisoners prior to interrogation — a situation in which harsher interrogation techniques are seen as important in extracting information that could save the lives of other U.S. soldiers.
Now if you’re telling me that a home-schooled Christian soldier is NOT going to strip a prisoner naked and put panties on his head in order to soften him up for an interrogation that he is told may produce information that saves the lives of other soldiers, then I think you are VERY mistaken about how people respond in such situations.