Andrew Sullivan has the Ian Fishback story. It appears that, if Fishback's testimony holds, torture and mistreatment were not limited to that small group at Abu Ghraib, and were condoned higher up the food chain than we are supposed to believe. In fact, there are some indications that it was condoned all the way to the top.
Money quote:
"Since clear standards only limit interrogation techniques, it is reasonable for me to assume that supporters of this argument desire to use coercion to acquire information from detainees."
Which is why all the bellyaching about how releasing the new photos will hurt our troops, and how we alrady have seen what's on them so there is no need to see more is such bunkum. While Bill O'Reilly and the pundits may believe this, it increasingly seems that the administration doesn't want the photos released because it doesn't want any controls on interrogation techniques or any oversight. Put another way, they are not trying to protect "our soldiers," they are trying to cover up prisoner abuse.
Of course, some may argue that US mistreatment is better than what people underwent under Saddam. Yes, but that hardly excuses mistreatment, or the condonement of mistreatment by higher-ups, assuming it occurred.
And then, of course, we get the argument: "but these were terrorists trying to kill us, so why should we worry about their rights?" I will deal with that question tomorrow, as I am getting tired now.
That is all.
No comments:
Post a Comment