No, not the Administration, which I'm coming to believe might be both.
In this case, specificaly, that idiot Glenn Reynolds, whom I will not presently dignify with a link.
I've had it with Reynolds' sanctimonious dwelling on the fact that, yes, other people in other nations and on other continents also do bad things. I wish I could figure out what the hell his point is. He's been seriously beaten by other more sensible and sane bloggers on both sides of the aisle on this, yet he persists.
Does the fact that the Sudanese are engaging in genocide in the Darfur region in any way mitigate what we've done in Iraq? No, of course not. And Reynolds is too canny to come right out and say, "The Sudanese are genocidal maniacs, so what we're doing is okay."
I think even the worst sort of jingoistic idiot would start throwing rotted fruit at him for that... rightly so if they did, and shame on people for not throwing more of it at him presently. So while he can't say it outright, he can just sniggeringly, smirkingly imply it.
And he does this by trying to pretend that the greater coverage of American crimes in Iraq implies that the media (and, indeed, everyone else) simply doesn't care about abuses and crimes anywhere else in the world, or committed by anyone else, to which I can only cry bullshit!
To paraphrase Yglesias, "Yes, Glenn, you absolutely should infer from the coverage patterns that no one in the world is outraged about anything else." You brave, brave soul, making the call that no journalist dares make-- "Genocide is evil."
Thanks, Glenn. We weren't clear on that before, but you set us right. You sanctimonious twerp.
To see how unbelieveably stupid this line of reasoning is, try bringing it down an octave and see how it plays: "Well, gee, all this coverage about Abner Louima and so little about the gang violence going on in Los Angeles... That must logically imply that none of the news media members care about crimes committed by citizens!"
Of course not. The fact that people actually made that argument does not mean that those people were not reprehensibly stupid.
The message is not "Citizen crime is just fine." The message is, "How are we going to get a handle on citizen crime when the police are committing crimes as well?" The message is, "Why are people going to cooperate with us if we engage in practices like this?" The message is, "Isn't it pretty scary when the guys with the power to enforce their will are, in fact, enforcing this?"
The UN oil for food scandal is important precisely because the UN is supposed to exist on something of a higher moral plane than Saddam Hussein. That Saddam Hussein would starve his own people is expected. That the UN would allegedly starve millions of people in the name of simple graft is not expected. Likewise, that Sudanese authorities would roust the Fur people from their lands and send them packing on a replay of the Trail of Tears into Chad, dying in droves all the way is shockingly, distressingly, apallingly, not something at which anyone can really be surprised.
That American military police, whose stated job description is keeping prisoners safe are doing whatever things are necessary to make Arab men so docile that they'll let themselves be assembled into pyramids of naked flesh and be photographed is just a little more newsworthy. So, yes, Reynolds, it's going to get play in the press.
And it rightly should, because for all the sound and fury coming out the Administration and the Military, fixing the problem is going to bring up more dirt than most people are willing to believe. Without the press covering this, and without the public rightly clamoring that it be covered, there would be no pressure to fix this problem, and every pressure to bury it, ignore it, deny it, hope it goes away, which is what this Administration and this Secretary of Defense do about every problem they face in Iraq. And for all your braying about the irrelevancy of mainstream news, you're not only not helping, you're actively hurting the situation.
If we're going to be doing this global cop business-- an ugly job, but clearly a job for which no other nation (or even group of ten nations that I can think of) has the force projection necessary, then we shall be held to a higher standard, as well we should be.
We hold cops walking the beat to higher standards than criminals, because it is their job to get rid of the criminals without becoming criminal. We will likewise hold ourselves to higher standards because it is our self-appointed task to get rid of these practices in the first place.
We hold cops on the beat to higher standards because we let them walk around with loaded guns, and we even let them use them when the situation warrants. We will likewise hold ourselves to higher standards because we sail around with loaded fucking aircraft carriers and we've given ourselves permission to use those, too.
Why is this so hard for some people to understand?
The following is slightly modified version of something I posted to a newsgroup late last week, on the subject of what should happen (not what I thought would happen, at the time, just what I think should happen) on the subject of the Abu Ghraib matter.
But on the substance of Abu Ghraib, here's how I see it. There are four elements in this barbarism. Perhaps five. They are, in no special order (except the fifth, which is last) the military personnel associated with that prison, the contracted civilian personnel associated with that prison, the political leadership here (which shades into the highest level of military command), and the Iraqi people. The fifth group, involved mostly as shocked spectators, but still important, is the American public.
Justice, such as can come out of this situation, *must* address all four (or five) of those groups, sending the clearest possible message that we are *not* the new boss, same as the old boss. Responding to Stolz a few weeks ago, I made the comment that there is nothing inherent to the men and women of the Middle East that makes them unsuitable for freedom and democracy. The horrifying other side of that coin is that there is nothing inherent in us, as men and women, that makes us immune to barbarity. The Milgram experiment results are blind.
We do not have a special breed of men and women. What we have, we tell ourselves in moments of painful reflection, is a better system-- policies, procedures, and societal standards that should all act against these acts, not make them into policy. What we must do, with all possible speed, and thoroughness, and attention, is fix, follow, and strengthen those policies.
So, here is what I think should happen:
1) The military must be sent a signal, very publicly, that this sort of behaviour will not ever be tolerated. Very obviously, everyone-- and I mean everyone-- directly involved with or associated with these actions should be brought up on charges. To a small degree, this is happening. PFC England, for instance, is being brought up on charges, as are others. There are pending probes for subsequent events and deaths.
This is not sufficient. When I say associated with, I'm not restricting this to just the people shown in the photgraphs, and even even just to the people who physically laid hands on the prisoners. I'm talking about everyone in that area who had responsibility, command or otherwise, for the involved units. Military responsibility, especially command responsibility, is a grave trust. It is a trust from the soldiers so commanded, that they may be put in harm's way, but will be commanded well. It is a trust from the civilian public that the commands issuing forth will be good and humane.
Even the passive failure to recognize and end these abuses is a failure of that trust and responsibility. There are substantial chains of people who can and should be brought up on charges likewise.
Further than that, the military units at the core of this should simply be disbanded. Those who survive the various investigations and subsequent court proceedings should be reassigned to other units, as physically and socially isolated from one another as possible. Ideally, those new assignments will not be pleasant ones, either.
I'm given to understand that the military, as an institution and a culture, places great importance on unit cohesion and tradition. Therefore, make those social units cease to exist, in fact.
2) The contractors, if that's how we're going to conduct operations in the future, should be sent a similarly harsh message. I never, in my wildest dreams, thought I would be thankful for anything associated with John Ashcroft, but despite the idea that these contractors are somehow bereft of all legal jurisdiction, Ashcroft is on record as saying he'll prosecute anyone of them he's asked to.
He should, of course, be asked to investigate and prosecute a large number of folks.
In fact, I have it in mind that perhaps they *should* be tried under Iraqi law, such that it is. The Administration has stubbornly stuck to June 30th as the handoff date, even if it is only "limited" sovereignity. Let part of that be a carefully guided foray into what a real justice system should be and should do. If the trial is fair and the Iraqi code as it develops demands death, I don't have a problem with that. The US code stipulates the death penalty is acceptable for incidents which result in the death of a prisoner.
Besides, the Iraqi people have been wronged. They deserve a say in the outcome.
I realize that last point is a bit of a fantasy-- the guidance process required to prevent the thing from turning into a festival of blood is probably more than can be guided into place. But if not, I think Dick Armitage would be a good overseer.
Beyond the individual level, however, the companies which employed those contractors need their own harsh message. Therefore, to the maximum extent allowed by law and practicality, let their contracts be voided and awarded elsewhere, and let them be the subject of investigation, audit, and probe until they cease to exist. Assuming, of course, we can't just take them to court directly.
Also, in the category of closing the barn door after the horse has run off, institute strong[er] policies regarding ethics, and even basic humanity training for contracting companies. I'm a much different kind of government contractor, and I have to sit through ethics training every year. And that's just for boring lab duty.
Yet somehow, I would not be surprised to learn that there is nothing comparable required for people performing far more important work under far more stressful and hostile conditions. Knowing the way of these things, I'd almost be surprised if there was anything of the sort at all.
Let there be NO ONE who can claim they didn't know right from wrong.
And finally, these companies should share in the bill of reparations.
3) At the top of this structure are the civilian political leaders, shading over into the highest echelons of the military staff. This failure in the chain of command extends all the way up to Donald Rumsfeld. He said so himself. Even before Bush is likely voted out of office in the Fall, there should be serious shakeups in the chain of command extending downward.
Or, in plain English, a whole lot of people should be encouraged to resign or flat out fired (and then, if need be, investigated on criminal charges.) I am not excluding Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers. In fact, I rather think they should go, as the individuals at the top of the heap, here, barring President Bush-- on whom there shall be a small referendum this Fall.
One of my increasingly strident complaints about the Bush Administration has been its macabre unwillingness to actually dismiss anyone from any post for any reason or any failure. I maintain that a large number of people should have been fired after 9-11 because of the intelligence failure. To be consistent, I must likewise maintain (and I do!) that large numbers of people should lose their jobs over this.
This is not because I think Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz nudged and winked General Myers into instituting a campaign of abuse. It is because, fair or unfair, these things happened on their watch, and these things simply ought not to have happened. Gross negligence is grounds for dismissal.
4) The Iraqi people should certainly see all of these things happening, and know that they are happening as a result of American wrong doing. They should see the results of a system made to work properly-- the government is accountable to the people, and the people should demand a government they can be proud of, even when human beings fail.
Moreover, to the maximum degree possible, they should be involved in the process. The only good idea I have in that regard is, alas, probably unworkable-- that is, turning the civilian contractors over to the nascent Iraqi justice system. Perhaps someone creative can come up with something better.
(As I edit this now, the beginning of what I hope will be a large wave of courts martial is beginning, and it is open to the Iraqi public from what I hear. This is, at least, a start, and if possible, a more realistic precedent for the civil contractors, who can certainly be prosecuted under Federal Law.)
Just as importantly, to the maximum extent practical, we should certainly pay reparations to the victims, or in some cases, their families. This is, I realize, a Gordian Knot, as surely some of those victims are likely extremely bad people. I say that, not to minimize or excuse anything that happened, but simply to point out the inherent conflict of priorities, which might result in giving an insurgent or a terrorist a cash prize in exchange for being beaten and abused.
Some ethical person, smarter than I, needs to give serious consideration to that problem.
Finally, of course, the entire Abu Ghraib complex should be razed to the ground and paved over, preferably by a very well-paid Iraqi construction firm. If these means the construction of other, newer prisons, by those same Iraqi firms, to prevent overcrowding... Then do it. Quickly.
5) The American people, the important bystanders.
We, too, need to know that we have a system, and that it works. We can only know this by being shown. So, show us. I want my soul back.