let's see if we can agree upon just one thing. . .(Abu Graib)

[stellanoir]

This is an issue that's been out there for a while, but persists in providing me great angst.

Ever since I first heard of the outrageous atrocities, humiliations, and more importantly, the inexcusable sexual degredation of mostly (60-90% according to Amnesty and the Red Cross) innocent children (and adults), I have had a horrible feeling in my stomach. We have compromised our alleged moral authority and integrity irrevocably.

A plethora (12-3) of investigations have been initiated. They want obfuscate the truth and pin this on 7 scapegoats, when make no mistake, our dubious commander in chief is fundamentally responsible.

Every countless time he said 9/11 and Saddam Hussein in the same sentence, every time he said "evil doers", every time he said, "you're either with us or against us," he reinforced the naive minds who served at his bidding, the belief that these poor innocent individuals were not even worthy of the most basic human rights, or the rights granted all of us under the Geneva Conventions and the formally formidable rule of law.

We used to represent a beacon for these rights. We do no longer. I'm deeply disheartened and sincerely hope that Seymour Hersh's upcoming book (due out 9/12) exposes the severity of this abuse on innocents.

I'm a mom and the thought of someone abusing my child to solicit information from me that I simply don't possess, makes me absolutely outraged and sickened.

The fact that so called "intelligence" extracted through these heinous means is more often than not, totally unreliable should speak volumes to those responsible and to those who may someday get to prosecute their unlawfullness. If anyone of us were subjected to such violations, most of us would say anything they wanted to hear, just to make it stop.

Meanwhile, our government has invested 1.8 billion on training Iraqi security forces. Oh but they've experienced a 80% desertion rate. Another fine investment by *co. Nevermind.

Rant over. Discuss if you so desire.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. I agree

we have lost our moral authority in the world. I hate to think what karma we have created for ourselves as a nation.

[Ms. Clio]

2. I just a heard that a new report says the blame for Abu Ghraib

Goes all the way to the top, up to Rumsferatu himself.

What a joke--I thought Bush was the Commander in Chief.

Trust Faux to always cover Chimpy's shit-smeared ass.

[coalition_unwilling]

3. Perhaps the one area we don't agree on

Is who or what is responsible. In other words, what caused Abu Graib? A part of me sees it as an inevitable by-product of imperialism, i.e., caused by structural forces inherent in the imperial project. Another part of me, the part that used to believe in American exceptionalism (and still wants to believe Lincoln's words in his 2nd Inaugural that we are "the last, best hope of man"), sees it as the product of "bad actors" up to and including Rumsfeld and Bush.

I'd really be interested in getting DU's take on this issue.

[stellanoir]

5. Lincoln's second inaugural address

also spoke of us all following one god, "with mercy towards all and malice towards none." * could never utter words so simplistically profound.

[coalition_unwilling]

6. Actually, "with charity towards all" (I think)

Yes, I too have a hard time hearing anything remotely similar coming from anyone in the BFEE.

BTW, my favorite Lincoln quote is not as well known, and I'm not entirely sure of its sourcing: "The best way to get rid of an enemy is to make him a friend." Pre-dates Oscar Wilde by about 30 years, but has the flavor of that Wildean wit.

[Ms. Clio]

13. I believe it is the natural result of imperialism

And America has never been exceptional in that regard--the westward expansion, the U.S.-Mexico War, the Spanish American war and occupation of the Phillipines, the annexation of Hawaii--these were all part of the imperial project.

[coalition_unwilling]

16. Yes, part of me agrees with you.

Hard to avoid when you start looking under the rocks of American history.

But consider what Lincoln, when he called us "the last, best hope of man" was saying, that democracy (one person, one vote) really could work as a means of governance, as opposed to aristocratic and autocratic regimes elsewhere. IMO, that is the main reason why Lincoln insisted on keeping the Union together, because deep down he believed in the possibilities of democracy and that America was 'exceptional' in fulfilling the promise of democracy.

I hope this doesn't start a fire-storm; oh how I wish we had Lincoln alive today (or Martin Luther King or Robert Kennedy).

[Ms. Clio]

18. Well, Lincoln was a great man, and a great President

But that doesn't mean he was right about American exceptionalism.

Most historians would say he was not.

[coalition_unwilling]

21. Don't commit the sin of "present-ism"

At the time Lincoln uttered those words -- "last, best hope of mankind" -- the United States did (I think) appear exceptional, if only because it was attempting to govern through limited democratic self-governance, as opposed to monarchy, autocracy, or despotism.

If events since the Civil War have given the lie to Lincoln's aspirations for the Republic, that doesn't take away from the fact that at the time he uttered those words, he believed them to be true, as did many others.

[Ms. Clio]

22. It's impossible not to commit that sin

All history is written from the perspective of the time of the writer. There are no exceptions to that rule.

As for what Lincoln or others believed, that does not mean they were correct in those beliefs.

At the time he spoke, the U.S. was not the only republic or constitutional monarchy in the world.

[LibraLabSoldier]

4. As far as Abu Graib goes

Young soldiers are never just "doing whatever they feel like". There is always a chain of command, Someone always knows what is happening. IF they dont, its a failure of command. Lyndie England has no sympathy from me. She was not supposed to be in the prisoner areas at all, but her boyfriend was trying to show off. However, the civilian contractors are going slide.

This is another black eye for honorable soldiers. As if the SBLs werent bad enough.

[mike_c]

7. I feel your pain, but one thing you must realize...

...is that the "moral authority" you spoke of has been increasingly illusionary since WWII-- and many would argue that it never really existed at all. For example, the U.S. military and our civilian intel agencies (read CIA) were responsible for worse atrocities against innocent civilians in Vietnam, 30 years ago, on a scale that makes Iraq look tame by comparison. Likewise, we and our allied thugs have been raping, torturing, and killing poor people in Central and South America for generations.

I don't mean to take away any of your outrage over Abu Ghraib-- I'm just as outraged. But one thing we all need to realize is that even though the scales might be coming off of our eyes, Abu Ghraib is NOT where the U.S. lost its innocence and moral authority-- it's just the most recent incident that many people have become aware of.

[Djinn]

14. ditto

I don't think any powerful nations throughout man's history has been a beacon for rights - they've all exploited, tortured and killed for power and profit.

[coalition_unwilling]

17. Over-generalization

How about during the U.S. Civil War, following the Battle of Antietam Creek ('Sharpsburg' to my Southern brethren)? Wouldn't you say the massive loss of life in the pursuit of keeping the U.S. together and abolishing slavery was "a beacon for rights"?

On a humorous side-note, I'd much rather discuss the Civil War than the Vietnam War, if only because some good came out of the former, IMO. Maybe we should try to get Bush and Kerry to debate the Civil War. That would be a friggin hoot.

[Ms. Clio]

20. The Civil War was not fought to abolish slavery

Lincoln had another famous quote I can't recall, something about not freeing a single slave if it would keep the Union together.

[coalition_unwilling]

23. Read McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom"

It's the standard one-volume history. True, the Civil War didn't start out as a war to abolish slavery, but as a war to preserve the Union as "the last, best hope of mankind". But, along the way, following Antietam, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation changed Northern war aims from simply preserving the Union with slavery intact to preserving the Union with slavery abolished.

On a humorous side note, when I say the Civil WAr didn't start out as a war to abolish slavery, I should point out that it started out because a bunch of Southerners fired on Fort Sumter, SC. Those reading this thread who don't think the war was about ending slavery are thus, IMO, reduced to a position that it was a war that shouldn't have been fought (pure pacifism). As my junior high history teacher put it, oh so long ago, "We should have just let the South go. Who needs 'em?" Think about it. Bush wouldn't be President of the U.S.

[Ms. Clio]

25. Thanks for the tip, I've read McPherson

and I study 19th-century American history--that is my field.

And the war was definitely ABOUT slavery, but it didn't start because Lincoln or the Republicans intended to abolish slavery from the beginning.

And Bush isn't really a Texan, so we would still be stuck with him, South or no South, alas.

[coalition_unwilling]

26. I specialized in modern European in college

But, as I've gotten older, the era that has come to interest me most is American from 1840-1876 (which included the 19th-century pre-cursor to 2000).

One thing that fascinates me is that, in the North (and South) you had all these early volunteers signing up for 3- and 6-month enlistments. Were they signing up to preserve the Union (somewhat of an abstraction but probably very real to them), to abolish slavery (probably only about 10% at most were abolitionists in 1860), to get off the farm (my Dad's hypothesis), or some combination of the three?

Love to hear your take on that

[Ms. Clio]

28. That's a great question--I think many of them signed up at first

because they thought they were preserving the Union, and because they thought the war was going to be really short, and for honor and glory (similar to your Dad's hypothesis).

But then, what is really interesting, is why did so many men re-enlist, even after experiencing all the horrors of combat for months or years?

McPherson has a book you might really like, called, For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War. It's brief and very readable. He draws on thousands of letters and hundreds of private diaries, and he concludes that they were powerfully convinced of the ideals for which they fought, and also they were strongly bonded to their comrades in arms.

[coalition_unwilling]

30. I'll check it out next time I'm in library

I spent some time thinking about the issue (of exceptionalism) last night -- couldn't get to sleep for thinking about it -- and finally decided that American history is a tapestry. For every 'trimmer' like Steven Douglas, there's a John Brown exceptionalist. During dark times such as these, there always seems to be a new Martin Luther King, Jr. waiting in the wings to renew the exceptionalist 'promise' of America, even if that promise is yet to be fulfilled.

Having come of age on a farm in the Midwest, I'm inclined to lean towards my Dad's hypothesis that many farm kids wanted a chance to 'get off the farm and see the world.' But McPherson, in Battle Cry of Freedom, argues that many were indeed motivated by the idea of preserving the Union. Perhaps that abstract ideal (of the "last, best hope for man") is what drove re-enlistments, at least on the Northern side. To re-enlist one would think that troops must believe strongly in the cause they are fighting for--contrast with today's events couldn't be starker.

[Ms. Clio]

32. Good point about current re-enlistements

I wonder what the comparative figures would be?

We should also remember that "honor" was a very real and powerful motivator for men of both sides, as well.

But American "exceptionalism" is simply a myth, and one that is increasingly dangerous, because it allows the U.S. to think it has the only valid political, economic, and social system, and the right and duty to impose that on other peoples around the world.

I think you will enjoy the book, because it includes so many of the voices of the men and women of the time.

[coalition_unwilling]

33. "Honor" is probably also a myth (albeit a powerful one)

Of course, had the entire U.S. Civil War been fought by irregular units like Mosby's Rangers, instead of principally by regular infantry and cavalry units, there probably would have been way less honor to go around on both sides.

On the other hand, what other than "honor" could have compelled U.S. troops at Fredericksburg or Confederates at Pickett's Charge?

[Ms. Clio]

35. "Honor" is a social construction, yes

That means different things in different times and places. Roman honor was not the same as Southern honor, etc.

Honor--duty--perhaps most of all (if McPherson is right in For Cause and Comrades they felt compelled to stand with their brothers in arms.

Powerful stuff, indeed.

[Djinn]

29. what's over generalised?

that powerful nations fight wars for power and profit? I didn't say ALL wars were fought over this. Although I don't mark the civil war down as having anything to do with a beacon of rights, keeping the US one nation doesn't really effect human rights much and it wasn't fought to free the slaves.

[coalition_unwilling]

31. It may not have started that way (as a war to free the slaves) . . .

But it sure as heck ended that way.

[stellanoir]

8. undoubtedly the military contractors are going under

no scrutiny whatsoever. I'm no fan of England's either. But heard an interview today on http://theconnection.org (first hour) that focused upon a guy who was there and tried to speak up for the the detainees. He was given a gruff,"I've been in the military long before you so shut up." The GI was just trying to speak up for the possible inoocence of the detainees. He got shut down and shut up poste haste.

Also I wonder about the pervasiveness of porn in our culture (from what I gather indirectly) much of it is violent. It makes more dough than any other industry in our culture. It may ultimately be one of the influences that could spell our demise.

[Ms. Clio]

15. It's a lot more than Lyndie England

And it has happened in more places than Abu Ghraib.

But it's surely a great festering rot that goes all the way to the top.

[hansolsen]

9. George Bush is the Prince of Abu Ghraib. This is his legacy.

George Bush is responsible for this abuse. I call him The Prince of Abu Ghraib.

He set the tone from the top down that this war is different, that 9/11 changes everything, that the world is either for us or against us, and anyone against us in this war is not entitled to enemy combatant status as prisoners of war.

George Bush has trashed the United Nations, trashed the World Court, and trashed the Geneva Convention. Is it any wonder that soldiers in the front lines are unclear how far they must go to squeeze intelligence from prisoners?? Bush holds "detainees" for years without access to counsel, and treats them like dirt, keeping them naked and terrified by unmuzzled dogs. In this sense, George Bush, too, is a terrorist.

George Bush is the boy emperor of American politics; he is a modern day Caligula in training pants. The abuse at Abu Ghraib is his legacy. As an American citizen, I say this is wrong, I don't like it, and I am mad as hell about it. And furthermore, I don't care who knows it.

[stellanoir]

11. thanks

for stating in a more concise and clear manner, my sentiments exactly.

[hansolsen]

12. Your welcome. N/T

[DrWeird]

10. Back during WWII the US used to hang people like that.

We overthrew Saddam for torturing Iraqis, I see know reason to give people a slap on the wrist for it just because they were wearing an American uniform.

[Disturbed]

19. Abuse and Torture

This certainly doesn't stem from porno. This type of behavior goes back thousands of years. It is part of human history. Villify, objectify the enemy and make that enemy sub-human and perpetrate the wrath on that enemy. Americans are no less imune from this than any other country. The climate was set up and encouraged by all from this dispicable excuse of a Pres. down through the chain of the Neo Fascists.

The Cover Up is strong. At least 24 Secret US Prisons and at least 28 detainee deathes. This goes way beyond Abu Graib. The Torure Policy is system wide and the entire US Govt, incl. the Congress is covering the putrid mess up!

[kimchi]

24. Most excellent rant.

This sentence sums it up nicely:

"Every countless time he said 9/11 and Saddam Hussein in the same sentence, every time he said "evil doers", every time he said, "you're either with us or against us," he reinforced the naive minds who served at his bidding, the belief that these poor innocent individuals were not even worthy of the most basic human rights, or the rights granted all of us under the Geneva Conventions and the formally formidable rule of law. "

Well put.

[stellanoir]

27. thanks

I certainly acknowledge that our history over time has hardly been innocent. Yet, I naively felt an apparantly false sense of history being changed, and options unimaginably being open, to mankind throughout the '90's. Yeah do I know about Kosovo and Rwanda. That was small scale next to the vitriolic vitupritive hatred circulating now globally.

But still, it palpably felt as if there was a new possibility, of hope, and peace, that has been utterly trashed by BushCo. And even worse, purposefully so. How such an insignificant percentage of the poplulation could take absolute control and trash all that we have stood for, for over 250 years has me utterly baffled and damn near dumbstruck.

I really and rather stupidly felt as though I was going to leave to my son, a better world. Now I just am concerned about the pending reinstatement of the draft.

How could we have possibly fallen so far so fast. . .?

No need to answer. I'm familiar with history. Just am terribly dissapointed.

[MISSDem]

34. The whole prisoner abuse thing is appalling. Even the M.D.s were

involved. They patched up injured prisoners and sent them back for more torture. How can they cover all of this up?