posted on May 8, 2004 10:18:26 PM newOur View: What do we do in wake of Abu Ghraib?
By: North County Times - Editorial
Abu Ghraib.
What in the world have we done?
What in the world do we do now?
For anyone inclined to have an immediate answer, it might be a worthwhile private moment to step back and count past 100 for as long as it takes to try to view the horrors at Abu Ghraib the way history will.
Don't hold your breath while counting. History pages do not happen in quick rough drafts.
What in the world have we done?
The world ---- and every American ---- knew in the heartbeat of a glance at the irrevocable evidence that our country is guilty of an egregious civilizational indignity. First sight of the images within the walls of Abu Ghraib are seared in memory forever.
But we and the world stand too close to the moment to fully comprehend how severely our country has stained the pages of history. On that premise, we believe that as a nation we stand too close to our dastardly acts to fully know what in the world we must do now.
Whatever immediate action we take would at best serve as reactive tokens of symbolism that arguably would not be enough. Let's do it right, not with some hasty bold stroke as a be-all end-all.
For now, here at home, if there need be a symbol to show the world, we ought to start with the inevitable: Disband and banish the reserve battalion at whose hands the world has witnessed humiliating abuses and torture.
For now, in Iraq, let us initiate the inevitable at Abu Ghraib: Move the prisoners out to other places of incarceration.
Then level the place.
Prepare the ground there and help the Iraqi people create the most lasting symbol possible.
We are a nation of laws, and those laws are at work for us and for the world now. The annoyingly slow process of investigation and prosecution is under way. Let it happen. Let the people of Iraq see democracy as democracy should be. With all the light of the world looking down on the process, we can be sure this work will work.
Indeed, there's no shortage of ideas, demands and options. They flow from the media, from elected and appointed officials, from the family room to the highest offices of international leadership. At tragic times like these it is necessary, healthy and good in the wake of something that so staggers human sensibilities. Everyone has an opinion, everyone's opinion should be heard.
But it will take time righting this wrong, because we don't yet know what we don't know.
Accordingly, we believe that immediate dismissals, by resignation or firing, are not the answer of the moment. Initiating the ultimate dismantling of an already fragile governing infrastructure could not occur without potentially grave short-term risks. Resignations and firings may be necessary, and very possibly sooner than later. But not so quick.
The Abu Ghraib Prison, as surely as the other most infamous places on the world map, will one day be the symbol. A mighty symbol. There is no way now to divine how time will define or words will memorialize what the symbol stands for. But the ground that once was Abu Ghraib will ever hold its finite place on the Earth.
And people will go there, into the centuries, to do whatever it is we do when beholding with abstract chill a monument to yet another of humankind's darkest moments.
posted on May 9, 2004 05:05:51 AM new
We carry on and move forward, the investigation is not over and the idea of closing that prison is rediculous...
Once the investigation is over then the decisions can be made... if the New Iraqi government decides to close the prison and make it some sort of "symbol" that will be up to them.
What we do now is investigate. We do not disband the unit that had some soldiers disgrace them, we have couts martial to show that we do not condone these acts either.
If there comes out that there is proof higher ups were involved then we take them down also... However I believe there were no "orders" and these indviduals were just acting out sadistic abuse because they thought it would be funny in the future.
They will now learn how wrong it was.
They are still prisoners nothing has changed in that respect.
posted on May 9, 2004 05:19:18 PM new
raq Prison Abuse Scandal Angers Troops
Email this Story
May 9, 2:47 PM (ET)
By ANWAR FARUQI
CAMP AS SAYLIYAH, Qatar (AP) - When U.S. troops in Iraq sit down for a meal or hang out after a shift, conversations drift to the prison-abuse scandal that has shocked the world, with most expressing outrage, soldiers on leave in Qatar said Sunday.
But the soldiers insisted that despite doubts among some of them about the legitimacy of the war, the scandal has not affected morale because of the strong bonds troops have with buddies in their units.
"This was morally wrong. If you're given an illegal order, even by a superior, you shouldn't do it. You go to a higher authority. We're taught that," said Staff Sgt. Nancy Wellons-Stewart, who is based in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul. "Those people should be punished."
She blamed superiors for not putting a stop to the abuses.
"I don't believe that just one person could have done this on their own. They did this as a group," said Wellons-Stewart, of Pittsburgh.
Like other soldiers interviewed by The Associated Press, Wellons-Stewart is on a four-day, three-night "out" to the Gulf state of Qatar, where U.S. Central Command, which oversees the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, is based. Most soldiers said they were spending their leave shopping, chowing on fast food and taking military-organized cruises.
Photographs of U.S. military police humiliating Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad have triggered an international furor, leading to repeated apologies from President Bush and top military officials. Seven prison guards have been criminally charged.
The scandal has embarrassed the U.S. military, but most of the troops interviewed Sunday described it as misconduct by a group of soldiers gone bad, and they said it should not reflect on other Americans in uniform.
"We're in Iraq to do a job. What happened in the prisons was the work of a select few. All Americans are not like that," said Spc. Delando D. Miles, 25. "The blame for what happened should go only to the people who did it."
He said morale fluctuates often among the troops in Iraq, and that he sometimes believes the conflict is "pointless and worthless" and will never end. But he and others said they have not seen changes in morale as a result of the scandal.
Some soldiers blamed their superiors for the problems at Abu Ghraib.
"Where was the senior leadership? And how did this get so far?" asked Sgt. Glenda J. Bush, of Wisconsin Rapids, Wis.
"We do talk about this among ourselves," she said. "What we believe is that we wouldn't want to be treated like that, so others should not have been treated this way, either."
Despite their outrage at the prison abuses and the subsequent comparisons of Iraq to the war in Vietnam, all the soldiers who spoke to AP said they were committed to their mission.
Three weeks ago, Miles went home to Woodville, Miss., on a 15-day break from his Iraq tour. All he could think about were the buddies he left behind.
"I kept wishing there was a number I could call to talk to them or something," he said. "I couldn't wait to get back. My mom thought I was crazy."
"The Secret Service has announced it is doubling its protection for John Kerry. You can understand why — with two positions on every issue, he has twice as many people mad at him." —Jay Leno
posted on May 9, 2004 07:14:03 PM new
This is probably what will happen. After the next round of photos of rape and murder, which according to senate testimony are "blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman," Rumsfeld will resign. Inspections of Iraq prisons by the international communnity should be established. If not, torture will continue. If Rumsfeld remains, the Bush administration will self destruct at an even faster clip than would normally occur.
Iraq now looms as perhaps the greatest foreign-policy disaster this country has ever known.
Yes, leaving would be a disaster, but by what logical sequence of events can we make things better by staying?
What still-achievable goal could justify the further sacrifice of U.S. lives in an effort that has already claimed more than 750 soldiers?
And why should the American people continue to trust the lives of their children to a civilian leadership in the Pentagon that has already proved itself incompetent?
posted on May 10, 2004 08:11:15 AM newYes, leaving would be a disaster, but by what logical sequence of events can we make things better by staying?
I, for one, am still waiting for you to post that long list of our members of Congress or a quote from kerry recommending we withdraw/"leave"? I haven't seen it. Just more political rhetoric in an election year.
posted on May 10, 2004 09:32:30 AM new "I, for one, am still waiting for you to post that long list of our members of Congress or a quote from kerry recommending we withdraw/"leave"? I haven't seen it. Just more political rhetoric in an election year."
I've never mentioned such a long list linda or indicated that Kerry made that quote. Opinion is changing however on this war - very rapidly and I am sure that Congressional opinion will reflect that change. Right now there are even discussions about the possibility that Bush will not be running for president! Don't keep your head in the sand.
On the very conservative Gallup poll, only 42% now support Bush foreign policy. Economic approval rating has slipped to 41% and his job approval rating is going down...now only 49%
Now, I'll post the article from the Atlanta Journal Constitution.
From the beginning, President Bush's ambitions to invade, occupy and then transform Iraq into a model pro-Western democracy had a very small chance of success and a very big chance of going awry. And from the beginning, that small initial chance of success has been frittered away by this administration's crippling arrogance -- a failing compounded by its equally crippling incompetence.
As a result, Iraq now looms as perhaps the greatest foreign-policy disaster this country has ever known.
The outlook is so grim that former advocates of the invasion have already begun to try to shift blame for its failure elsewhere, including, amazingly, to those who dared to warn against invasion in the first place. Even the Bush White House, in all its willful and blissful blindness, has finally come to recognize the scale of the potential tragedy it has wrought. That sudden recognition has touched off a degree of panic in its policy-making that suggests still darker days may be ahead.
The signs of that desperation are many. It is hardly encouraging to see a major new policy approach announced one day and abandoned the next, or to hear top U.S. officials contradict each other regularly on matters of critical importance. Nor is it reassuring to see President Bush still traveling the country, still issuing empty platitudes about resolve and commitment, while the actions of his administration reflect profound confusion.
Even the much-discussed June 30 deadline for returning sovereignty to the Iraqis will not bring relief. Less than two months from the handoff, we still do not know what structure that new government will take or who will fill its positions. Such a situation would be absurd except for the fact that it doesn't really matter. The Iraqi people will have no more power over their own fate on July 1 than they do today. Once that realization sinks in among the general population, the cynicism and anti-American sentiment will grow.
The president's best remaining argument for staying the course in Iraq is that whatever mistakes we've made in the past, U.S. withdrawal would have disastrous consequences for ourselves and the rest of the world, touching off new waves of terrorism and shattering the already fragile political structure in the Middle East. And Bush is right about that danger. He is absolutely right.
However, there's a second part of that issue that remains unanswered. Yes, leaving would be a disaster, but by what logical sequence of events can we make things better by staying? What still-achievable goal could justify the further sacrifice of U.S. lives in an effort that has already claimed more than 750 soldiers? And why should the American people continue to trust the lives of their children to a civilian leadership in the Pentagon that has already proved itself incompetent?
That last question gained additional pertinence several days ago when Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, the intellectual godfather of this war, blithely told Congress that as far as he knew, somewhere around 500 U.S. soldiers had been killed so far in Iraq, with maybe 350 of those killed in combat. Apparently his duties as the No. 2 person in the Pentagon don't expose him to the gritty details of the little adventure he has concocted.
What then is achievable? At this point, whether we are willing to acknowledge it or not, the mission of our troops has changed dramatically. It would take at least a generation of U.S. presence in Iraq before a durable democracy could take root there, and we clearly don't have a generation. In the Sunni and Shiite regions of Iraq, our continued military presence may be measured in months, not years. Our goal must now be to contain the damage we have caused and prevent its spread to the surrounding region.
It is also probably impossible to maintain Iraq as a united country. The Kurds of northern Iraq have enjoyed years of self-government, and they have long been wary of rejoining their southern neighbors under one government. The events of the past year have no doubt confirmed the wisdom of that stance, and it is very hard to conceive of them peacefully accepting rule by the Shiite Iraqi majority.
Given those realities, success a few years from now might be an autonomous Kurdistan, its independence guaranteed by the presence of substantial U.S. military bases that would also serve to dissuade neighboring countries from taking advantage of Iraq's weakness. To the south, Shiites and Sunnis would be left to work out their own future, with as much assistance from the United States and others as they will tolerate, but with no American military involvement.
Even that outcome would not be easy; nor would it realize the dreams that lured our leaders into this misadventure. But it has the simple merit of being attainable.
posted on May 10, 2004 09:41:41 AM new
And there are polls that still show voters support the war.
The point is the more MODERATE dems ALSO believe we must not cut and run....but rather we need to see this though.
And our Congress is the one that will be making this call. You think they're going to vote against that new $25B request for Iraq funds? lol
It's only the ultra-liberals like yourself.....who, at least on this issue, stands further left than kerry states he does. LOL
But then maybe you're thinking of voting for Nader. Many other anti-war voters, who want us to pull out immediately, are saying they're voting for him.....BECAUSE kerry's not making withdrawl his policy.
posted on May 10, 2004 09:49:27 AM new
Bush is not a good leader. He just now gave a speech and told the world that Rumsfeld is doing a superb job and that the nation owes Rumsfeld a debt of gratitude.
Bush heard of the abuse months ago and he took absolutely no action and let it continue while the whole administration tried to sweep it under the rug. It is inexcusable and now he must bear the brunt of his lies and his foolish, uncaring and arrogant behaviour.
America must get rid of Bush to send a message to the rest of the world that this is not the way they treat others, that they do not approve of lies, deceits and cover-ups as well as these atrocities. It’s world perception that counts more than ever now.
posted on May 10, 2004 09:57:36 AM newBush is not a good leader. He just now gave a speech and told the world that Rumsfeld is doing a superb job and that the nation owes Rumsfeld a debt of gratitude.
Yes....and according to the Rasmussen Report as of today - with everything that's gone on - 52% of American's
still support his President.
Bush heard of the abuse months ago and he took absolutely no action Not true at all.....an investigation was started and is still ongoing.
and let it continue while the whole administration tried to sweep it under the rug. 'Sweeping it under the rug'.....others see that as waiting to hear the results of the investigation.
America must get rid of Bush to send a message to the rest of the world that this is not the way they treat others, that they do not approve of lies, deceits and cover-ups as well as these atrocities.
And others don't see it the same way you do.....thank God. They are able to put this issue into perspective and realize that the actions of a very few....are NOT representative of our nation or our military.
It's world perception that counts more than ever now.
Maybe you'd like to inform us which country[ies] that were supporting us in this war, agreed with us going into this war....have now turned against us. Most didn't support us to begin with and are just using this as an excuse.
posted on May 10, 2004 10:09:10 AM new
Linda - do you honestly consider leaving a report regarding a power keg issue such as ths unread for a month is an example of doing "a superior job"?
Consider thhis... had he bothered to read the report and view the pics a month ago they could have orchestrated press conference and pushed the investigation, announced the charges etc Nand greatly ddefused the situation before it became the disaster that it is right now.
Instead he just did not read it. Having mny thing on his plate is not an excuse by the way. If he knew there was an investigation into prisoner abuse he should have been looking for the report on the outcome of the investigation to come in.
I wonder if 52% of Americans would support a business owner that gave full and public support to someone that showed such indifference to such a serious situation. I'm thinking that if a corporate CEO stood up and did what Bush did thi s morning, there would be a resulting mass stock sell off.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on May 10, 2004 10:22:17 AM new
fenix - How I see this is it's President Bush's decision to make....not the opposing party....not the Bush haters....only his. We are at WAR. No president should be forced to make anyone, especially Rumsfeld right now, resign unless he wants to.
---------------------
Here's an opinion I agree with also:
The Far Left -
"I am now officially sick-and-tired of the self-serving and largely uninformed hand-wringing about the goings on at Abu Ghraib prison outside of Baghdad.
As someone who has actually been on the grounds of Abu Ghraib prison, let me explain a few things. First of all, there is no excuse for what a few soldiers did; but there is also no reason to make this into the moral equivalent of the Black Plague.
It should be pointed out that the prisoners at Abu Ghraib are not Boy Scouts rounded up for jaywalking. These are bad guys who either blew up or shot a coalition member; or were caught assembling an explosive device; or were caught in a place where the makings of explosive devices were found; or were caught with a cache of weapons.
See the pattern here? In short they were trying to kill me and others like me. And if they succeeded in doing that, they were going to come over there and try to kill you. ... The Roar du Jour from those who want to get into this story by beating their chests over how terrible it all is, keep telling us that this has damaged American credibility in the Middle East.
Let's look at that. First, lots of Arabs don't like us in the first place. Those Arabs will not like us any less for this incident. That dislike has nothing to do with our cultural insensitivities. It has to do with America's refusal to allow those same Arabs, many of whom have been bankrolling the Palestinian terrorists for decades, to wipe the State of Israel off the face of the Earth they way they have wiped it off the face of their maps.
Second, those who claim that the Abu Ghraib situation will poison the well of American goodwill for decades, are really the ones who are under rating Arabs. They have to believe that all Arabs will assign the actions of perhaps a couple of dozen soldiers to the 280 million Americans who have pledged to help the Iraqis attain security, independence, and prosperity. Those making that claim must, therefore, believe that all Arabs have the intellectual capacity of a frog (a real frog, not a French person) and the emotional development of a three-year-old (a real three-year-old, not a French person).
Finally, our friends on the Left are so very, very concerned about how foreigners (read, Europeans) will see us. I don't care what the French, the Germans, or the Spaniards think about us. The French and the Germans are up to their elbows in the fraud and theft of billions of dollars in what is called the Oil-for-Food Program but which was really the Oil-for-Palaces Program. ...
The actions of a few soldiers in Abu Ghraib were wrong. But we cannot allow the spotlight currently shining on them to cast a shadow over the other 135,000 soldiers who are in Iraq doing their jobs professionally, properly, and with honor."
--Friend of The Federalist Rich Galen from the front
posted on May 10, 2004 10:22:33 AM newYes....and according to the Rasmussen Report as of today - with everything that's gone on - 52% of American's still support his President.
Linda, do you have to sink so low as to even report the Rasmussen report wrong? Do you think we take you at face value anymore and that we don't check out these things for ourself?
Kerry 46% Bush 45%
Election 2004 Presidential Ballot
Bush 45%
Kerry 46%
Other 4%
Not Sure 5%
RasmussenReports.com
Rasmussen Reports Home
Monday May 10, 2004--The latest Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll shows Senator John F. Kerry with 46% of the vote and President George W. Bush earning 45%.
These results were posted on Sunday and will not be updated until Tuesday. Rasmussen
Reports did not conduct survey interviews on Mothers' Day. However, on Monday at 3:00 p.m., we will provide our weekly update as to who Americans think is winning the War on Terror.
A survey completed Wednesday and Thursday found that 48% of Americans believe the Iraqi prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib represents an isolated event. However 29% believe such practices are fairly widespread. At the same time, public preference for Bush over Kerry on national defense issues has fallen to its lowest level of the year.
posted on May 10, 2004 10:28:25 AM new
Hey Linda - you did not answer the question.
Do you honestly consider leaving a report regarding a power keg issue such as ths unread for a month is an example of doing "a superior job"?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on May 10, 2004 10:33:33 AM new
Linda, keep digging, keep back pedaling, keep making excuses. You put those poll results here deliberately trying to mislead others. Some of us aren't quite as dumb as you think we are.
posted on May 10, 2004 10:36:52 AM new
fenix - do you honestly consider leaving a report regarding a power keg issue such as ths unread for a month is an example of doing "a superior job"?
First - no where have I used that term [superior job]. And I will say again.....Rumself has hundreds if not thousands of reports coming across his desk....this report of abuse WAS being investigated. The investigation was NOT over. It's still not.
What I'm saying is the decision is ONLY this President's.....not the opposing Bush hating left. We're at war.
posted on May 10, 2004 10:44:50 AM new
A lot of people think President Bush should apologize for this whole Iraqi prisoner mess.
Funny, but I don't remember hearing anyone say the deviants who strung up those four American contractors in Fallujah should apologize.
Or for that U.S. military convoy that was blown to bits checking out a supposedly sacred mosque. No one's apologizing to them.
Or to the families of those earliest American prisoners of the war, two of whom were butchered and hacked in captivity. No apologies there.
Or to all those Palestinians I remember dancing in the streets on September 11, after 3,000 innocents were senselessly slaughtered here. No apologies asked for. No apologies given.
Or to those scores of United Nations workers injured and killed in a Baghdad terrorist attack for simply trying to keep the peace. No apologies from those who couldn't keep the slightest hint of humanity.
Or Aban Elias, the American engineer taken hostage on Thursday. Where are the 'we're sorries' for him?
It is not surprising that we take the actions of a few to make a grander, false point about the many.
Why should it be surprising that the world would prefer to trump pictures of American soldiers abusing prisoners over American soldiers helping kids and curing the sick? No, it's far easier to say 'screw you,' than simply 'thank you.'
There is much we do wrong in this country. But at least we have the guts to admit it. We deal with it and correct it. It's a shame that so many outside this country haven't the guts to acknowledge it. Or even critics in this country, who haven't the decency to withhold sweeping judgment on it. And that's sorry, indeed." -- Neil Cavuto
posted on May 10, 2004 10:44:51 AM new
Linda - I know you did not say that - The President did this morning and since he knew there were accusations, not just from the military but from the red Cross and that an investigation had been launched and that this had the potential to be a PR disaster, do you feel that not reading the report from the investigator is an example of doing a "Superior Job"
Now... lets take your excuse into consideration. A report regarding 90% likelihood of the location of Osama Bin Laden appears on the desk of a high ranking democrat who hads been told there is good intelligence on the sitation and more indepth information will be forthcoming, If said high ranking democrat ignores the report for a month and they miss the oportunity ... are you going to defend with this same "he ges hundreds of reports, he was just too busy" excuse?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on May 10, 2004 10:56:39 AM new
kiara - I said:
[i]Yes....and according to the Rasmussen Report as of today - with everything that's gone on - 52% of American's
still support his President[/i].
and then my link says:
Sunday May 09, 2004--Fifty-two percent (52%) of American voters approve of President Bush's job performance while 48% disapprove.
How you see that as backpeddling - I can't even begin to guess.
The President's Job Approval has remained at 51% or 52% for eight straight days and eleven of the last twelve. Over the four plus months of 2004, the President's daily Approval rating has fallen below 50% just one time for a period of three days.
posted on May 10, 2004 11:07:40 AM new
Linda, we weren't talking here about jobs, were we? We were discussing what the world's view of the abuse of the prisoners is and about Bush and Rumsfeld and cover-ups.
Then you posted:
Yes....and according to the Rasmussen Report as of today - with everything that's gone on - 52% of American's still support his President.
You did not provide a link there, you were hoping that no one would question it, and no where did you say it was 52% on the job issue.
Your credibility here is sinking faster than Bush's as you continue taking things out of context, lying about what the rest of us think and believe and twisting everything to suit your own agenda just because you're so desperate to support Bush no matter what keeps happening.
posted on May 10, 2004 11:15:23 AM new
No fenix - I'm saying that when [use your binladen example] the most threatening issues demand attention...they get it. If a new threat came up....it would not be written in some report and placed on someone's desk....it would be verbably convied to the President or Rumsfeld....as needing immediate attention.. NOW!!!
This was already being investigated and when one ALSO considers what was going on in Iraq [al-sadr and Fulluja] that might have been just a little more pressing to deal with that the actions of 6-7 soldiers whose actions were already being investigated.
During the 9-11 commission someone said [I don't remember who] and I'm paraphrasing here...
'The terrorist only have to get it right once....we have to get it right 100% of the time.'
No one is perfect....no one can keep all the bad things from occurring....and Rumsfeld did apologize.
Just not enough for the left who wants his head.
But it's the President's decision......and I can fully understand why at this point, during the war in Iraq, this would be an option he isn't choosing.
posted on May 10, 2004 11:24:24 AM new
kiara - LOL.....now you're guessing at my intentions....got your crystal ball handy huh?
Exactly what you constantly accuse others of doing....you do yourself. You and helen need to clear your own mirrors off.
And no ....we weren't talking about jobs. But I think you're a little confused again....in trying to prove me to be lying.
The President's Job Approval rating refers to how AMERICAN'S judge he's doing in HIS job overall. Not taking just one issue but rather how he's doing his job as a whole...all things considered.
posted on May 10, 2004 11:25:48 AM new
Still have not answered the question Linda.
And I believe that your excuse is almost as valid as Runsfeld saying that he could not answer McCains question because he forgot to bring the information.
Well hell... as long as he appologized.... Of course Clinton appologized for his dabble with the intern and yet how many year later republicans still can't get over it. But hey... I guess Rumsfeld REALLY meant it.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
