Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiAdministration's Cynicism on Torture Breathtaking
In May of 2004, a grave Donald Rumsfeld stood before the TV cameras and condemned the pictures of abuse emerging from the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad."The images that we've seen that include U.S. forces are deeply disturbing, both because of the fundamental unacceptability of what they depicted and because the actions by U.S. military personnel in those photos do not in any way represent the values of our country or of the armed forces," Rumsfeld told the world.
Over the next few days, Rumsfeld would further condemn the abuse as "totally unacceptable and un-American," then as "blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman." He also made a promise that the guilty would be punished, a promise seemingly kept when seven enlisted personnel were later sentenced to prison.
Today, though, it is hard to fully describe the hypocrisy and cynicism of Rumsfeld's performance. As he stood there telling the world he was shocked, shocked at what transpired at Abu Ghraib, he did so knowing that he himself had authorized more serious acts of torture on a much larger scale.
He himself had approved acts that he called unacceptable and un-American. He himself had ordered treatment that was, in his words, sadistic, cruel and inhuman.
In fact, Major Gen. Anthony Taguba, the Army officer appointed by Rumsfeld to investigate the scandal at Abu Ghraib, now believes that in light of ongoing disclosures, "there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."
That is not a charge to be made lightly, but as the facts become clear, it becomes harder and harder to reach a contrary conclusion.
For example, it is telling that the initiative for torture does not seem to have come from interrogators frustrated at not getting information through legal means. To the contrary, the idea seems to have initiated very early in the top levels of government, from men such as Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney, who then drove sometimes reluctant subordinates to accept the practice. In the process, they ignored protests from interrogation experts at the FBI and elsewhere who insisted that less extreme approaches would be more fruitful and extract more accurate information. They also squelched objections that the practice was immoral and counter to American values and law.
The narrative that is emerging suggests that to Rumsfeld and others, torture was not something they felt forced to do, but rather something they wanted to do against those they blamed for Sept. 11. And while an instinct for such vengeance may be natural, it is an instinct that civilized nations refuse to sanction, as Rumsfeld acknowledged by condemning the abuse exposed at Abu Ghraib.
According to reports in The New York Times, the torture techniques implemented with high-level approval at Guantanamo and elsewhere had been borrowed from techniques used by communist China against captured Americans during the Korean War. Back then, we accurately condemned those techniques as torture and stressed that they produced false confessions. And when we used the same techniques, they produced the same results.
Back in the summer of 2002, you may recall, the federal government issued a series of odd security alerts, warning that terrorists were first going to target malls, then banks, then apartment buildings. Each warning produced a flurry of panic, but none ever panned out. That's because they were products of the ongoing torture of an al-Qaida member of already questionable sanity who was telling interrogators whatever they wanted to hear, just as our captured servicemen had.
Four years ago, Rumsfeld advised the country to be patient, assuring them that justice would be done to those who had broken our laws regarding torture.
"These things are complicated; they take some time," he said. "The system works."
Well, he better hope not.
Jay Bookman is the deputy editorial page editor of the AJC. His column appears Mondays and Thursdays.
Copyright© 2008 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
11 Comments so far
Show AllYes the acts commited at Abu Ghraid were discraceful and un-American, but the treachery of this adminstraion starts at the top. That is something a large porportion on the US population does not or will not accept. George W Bush has done more to harm our democracy than any terrorist ever could. Those on the right would call me un-American for saying such a thing, but I submit to them they are the un-American democracy, our democracy, haters who have willingly and exuberantly collaborated in the crimes of Bush/Cheney. That may sound harsh, but if not for the support this criminal adminstration has had, it could not have succeeded in undermining the very thing it was suppose to protect. I, and more importantly, history will hold eveyone in this country who cast a vote for Bush -at least the second time around- accountable for the crimes Bush/Cheney have perpetrated in their names. Shame on all of you who mindlessly followed the first fascist president of the United States. Shame on all the cowardly republicans and democrats in Congress who supported and still support and do nothing to stop the crimes of Bush/Cheney. Our country will never be the same. So much for the shining beacon of democracy. That torch will have to passed on to someone else, perhaps Canada. But wait, Canada has vast gas and oil reserves, we may invade.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
Either that or he is soon-to-be-retired 2 star General Taquba.
I remember Rummy being questioned about entering into Iraq and was he not frightened he'd be getting us into a quagmire, as he did, Rummy gripped both sides of his podium, leaned forward and gazed with that fucknut look towards the Journalist and sneered, "I don't do quagmires." Well, he's already wanted by Germany and France, keep 'em coming E.U.
Major Gen. Anthony Taguba's siding with the terrorists surely undermines the credibility of his testimony, no?
More to the point, a torturer is inevitably a coward. How else could you describe someone who torments someone who is powerless to fight back?
cactuspie says when this gang describes others, they are inevitably describing themselves. True. And how ironic that the American Secretary of Defense should be one of the coutry's greatest cowards! Revulsion and disgust!
"The narrative that is emerging suggests that to Rumsfeld and others, torture was not something they felt forced to do, but rather something they wanted to do against those they blamed for Sept. 11."
No, I don't think so. If that gang had any sentiments toward the people who gave them 9/11, it would be the deepest gratitude, certainly not anger. Without 9/11, they never would have got the support they needed to carry out thier disasterous wars for oil.
Rumsfeld's favourite word is 'kill'. He uses it proudly. I think he is merely a psyhcopath who gets his thrill from killing and torturing. He has been involved in it ever since the 70s when he supported Pinochet doing exactly the same kinds of things. What an abhorent example of a human being!!
When Rummy & Dick get a taste of their own medicine that's when we'll find out who was behind 911. Ever notice how when this administration and its cronies throw accusations at others, they're really subconsciously describing themselves?
RichM July 3rd, 2008 12:37 pm
citizenblog July 3rd, 2008 1:01 pm
That about says it all.
Yes...COINTELPRO, wasn't it? FBI...
But, to the Bureau's credit, it did draw the line at torture
Good points RichM. Anthony Taguba would make a good leader for those of us interested in Warring on War. Is the illegal wiretapping another practice that has been copied from some odd manual in a tin pot dictator country?
By the standards of the US media, this article is not too bad. If such a piece can appear in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, it would seem that the awful truth is slowly sinking in.
One weakness of the article, however, is in the sentence "...The narrative that is emerging suggests that to Rumsfeld and others, torture was not something they felt forced to do, but rather something they wanted to do against those they blamed for Sept. 11..."
The problem here is that it lets Rummy & others off far too easily, giving them the excuse that anger over 9/11 was the driving motivation behind the torture. Actually, Rummy & the others were doubtless perfectly well aware that none of the victims hadn't the slightest thing to do with Sept 11. What motivated them was partly their own depraved sadism, & partly the desire to be feared.