22 January 2005
Is there true accountability in a neo-con democracy?
Andrew Sullivan wrote a review of two books detailing the disgraceful abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib Prison and elsewhere in Afghanistan.
In his review, he states, "I confess to finding this transparency both comforting and chilling, like the photographs that kick-started the public's awareness of the affair. Comforting because only a country that is still free would allow such airing of blood-soaked laundry. Chilling because the crimes committed strike so deeply at the core of what a free country is supposed to mean. The scandal of Abu Ghraib is therefore a sign of both freedom's endurance in America and also, in certain dark corners, its demise."
I wonder if this is too sanguine a view to adopt.
After all, Bush re-appointed Rummie and Wolfie to the posts in which they presided over, if not orchestrated this scandal. To date, the administration would have us believe half-witted junior GI Joes were responsible. It beggars belief that only junior GI Joes dreamed up the systematic torture and murder of prisoners. For a military force which loves to brag about how professional and unquestionable its chain of command is, does this really ring true?
It's more appropriate to conclude that until a General officer or a Cabinet Secretary is jailed for these crimes, the scandal of Abu Ghraib isn't a sign of freedom's endurance in America nor necessarily its demise. Instead, it's a sign of hypocrisy, dishonour and cowardice in denying responsibility for crimes committed in the name of democracy.
Credit: The Washington Post
When you look at the picture above, there are unmistakeable echoes of Nazi SS guards bullying concentration camp prisoners, aren't there? In 1945, US Forces helped liberate people from hellish prisons with brutal guards and dogs. But in 2005, US Forces now incarcerate people in hellish prisons with brutal guards and dogs.
This is must be "freedom", neo-con style!
In his review, he states, "I confess to finding this transparency both comforting and chilling, like the photographs that kick-started the public's awareness of the affair. Comforting because only a country that is still free would allow such airing of blood-soaked laundry. Chilling because the crimes committed strike so deeply at the core of what a free country is supposed to mean. The scandal of Abu Ghraib is therefore a sign of both freedom's endurance in America and also, in certain dark corners, its demise."
I wonder if this is too sanguine a view to adopt.
After all, Bush re-appointed Rummie and Wolfie to the posts in which they presided over, if not orchestrated this scandal. To date, the administration would have us believe half-witted junior GI Joes were responsible. It beggars belief that only junior GI Joes dreamed up the systematic torture and murder of prisoners. For a military force which loves to brag about how professional and unquestionable its chain of command is, does this really ring true?
It's more appropriate to conclude that until a General officer or a Cabinet Secretary is jailed for these crimes, the scandal of Abu Ghraib isn't a sign of freedom's endurance in America nor necessarily its demise. Instead, it's a sign of hypocrisy, dishonour and cowardice in denying responsibility for crimes committed in the name of democracy.
Credit: The Washington Post
When you look at the picture above, there are unmistakeable echoes of Nazi SS guards bullying concentration camp prisoners, aren't there? In 1945, US Forces helped liberate people from hellish prisons with brutal guards and dogs. But in 2005, US Forces now incarcerate people in hellish prisons with brutal guards and dogs.
This is must be "freedom", neo-con style!
