4um: Again, May God Forgive Us

The kid was hurting very bad and they covered all the doors with sheets. Then when I heard screaming I climbed the door because on top it wasn't covered and I saw [name withheld] who was wearing a military uniform, putting his [male appendage] into the little kid's [anus] ... and the female soldier was taking pictures."

The eyewitness account provided by Abu Ghraib inmate Kasim Mehaddi Hilas, describing one of numerous episodes of sexual abuse by U.S. interrogators, including rape, homosexual rape, sexual assaults with objects including a truncheon and a phosphorescent tube, and other forms of sexual abuse and humiliation of detainees.

We need to dispense immediately with the idea that releasing the second batch of photos depicting torture and other abuse at Abu Ghraib and six other installations would create an unacceptable danger to U.S. troops in the region

Though it seem callous of me to point out as much, we should recognize that people who enlist in the military are paid, trained, and equipped to confront danger. We should also recognize that we do the cause of liberty no favors if we make it easier to invade and occupy foreign countries; indeed, we ought to do everything we can to accentuate the difficulty of carrying out criminal enterprises of that sort.

While we should focus most of our hostile attention on the policymakers responsible for sending the military on imperial errands of that sort, we shouldn't ignore the moral responsibility of every individual who enlists in the military and carries out the killing business such immoral policies entail. Given the pervasive stench of imperial corruption exuded by all of our public institutions, I cannot understand how anybody possessing the moral equivalent of the sense of smell could enlist in the military, or remain therein -- as if that particular organization enjoys some peculiar immunity from the decadence that afflicts the rest of the Regime.

Conservatives and others who revere the founders of our late Republic might recall that the men who won our independence and wrote the Constitution opposed a standing army, not only because it could be employed as an instrument of domestic tyranny, but also because it would offer irresistible opportunities for foreign adventurism. In this, as in so much else, the Founders' wisdom has withstood the passage of time.

Yes, it's entirely likely that releasing the photographs of torture and sexual assault -- including homosexual rape and, God forgive us, the defilement of children -- would lead to dangerous and potentially lethal complications for armed government employees who are killing people and destroying property in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, countries they invaded and continue to occupy by force

If our rulers were genuinely concerned about danger to "our troops," they would release the Abu Ghraib documents and bring the troops home. There -- problem solved! Instead, they are illegally suppressing the photos and keeping the troops in the field -- and now letting it be known that the U.S. military will remain mired in Mesopotamia (which is the more tractable of the two ongoing conflicts) for another decade or longer.

I suspect that the "danger" that preoccupies the ruling Establishment is not that confronted by the troops (about whom that Establishment cares little), but rather the danger potentially posed by those troops if enough of them escape the mental dungeon of official indoctrination and take a good, critical look at the people, institutions, and causes for which they're hired to kill and die

Exposure to the abuse photos, and the battlefield consequences that would ensue, would tend to focus the mind in that direction. An observation by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, who investigated the Abu Ghraib abuses, seems to underscore my point. "I am not sure what purpose [releasing the 2,000 additional photos of prisoner abuse] would serve other than a legal one and the consequence would be to imperil our troops, the only protectors of our foreign policy --"

Hold it right there: Taguba said "protectors of our foreign policy," not "defenders of our independence" or "guardians of our liberties." The foreign policy referred to entails open-ended entanglements in the affairs of nearly every nation on earth, as well as plundering huge sums from taxpayers to sustain a grotesquely huge military establishment and bribe political elites abroad. That foreign policy cultivates misery and harvests war and terrorism

Why in God's Name would any decent human being defend that foreign policy in the abstract, much less spill blood to implement it?

Although I wish harm or death on no human being, it seems to me a good idea to adjust the current set of incentives in such a way that at least some American military personnel, as they deal with another gust of blowback, will have an overdue confrontation with their conscience and decide unilaterally to end their service of the world's largest criminal enterprise, the government of the United State (spelling intentional).

Am I trying to incite desertion? Reducing the matter to terms simple enough for Sean Hannity to understand them -- yes, I am, where desertion is the only way to avoid upholding an immoral, unsustainable policy and serving a depraved Regime. Desertion is a moral imperative when continued service implicates a soldier in crimes against God and mankind.

Yes, American enlistees swear an oath in God's Name. Then again, so do Mafiosi. Nobody outside of that criminal fraternity considers it improper for a Mafia footsoldier to renounce his oath. No oath of service can sanctify participation in a criminal enterprise. What should distinguish a republican military from an armed gang is a sacred commitment to the rule of law -- meaning the defense of individual liberty and property, and the enforcement of measures that limit the power of government

At least some military and law enforcement personnel (or do I repeat myself) have come to understand that the oath they swore requires that they be willing to disobey certain orders. In exceptional circumstances, fidelity to constitutional principles would require wholesale repudiation of military service, rather than selective refusal to comply with illegal orders.

We applauded the courage of those who "defected" from the Red Army during its occupation of Afghanistan. (Interestingly, I don't recall the correct term, "deserted," being used to describe such cases.

Apart from nationalistic special pleading, I can't think of a way of framing an argument to justify the Soviet deserter while execrating an American stationed in Iraq or Afghanistan who follows the same course of action for the same reason: The triumph of conscience over programming. For those whose conscience can withstand such an assault, another motive might prove effective

Those who have seen the film Braveheart remember its depiction of the Battle of Stirling Bridge: Huge, serried rows of British infantry, archers, and heavy cavalry assemble across the field from a large, poorly armed, and indifferently motivated throng of Scottish footsoldiers, all of them hapless conscripts forced by their feudal lords to fight.

Near the front of the Scottish host, the lords -- whose allegiances are divided by favors dispensed on them by the English King Edward I -- are seen frantically discussing a negotiating strategy. The camera then pans to a conversation between two serfs, who in disgusted terms discuss the impending sell-out, which will follow the same blueprint as several before it: The armies will briefly skirmish, then a negotiation will ensue leaving the lords richer and the serfs paying more in taxes.

"That's it lads," one of the serfs exclaims. "I'm not fighting for these bastards!"

At some point, if liberty is to have a fighting chance, American military personnel are going to have to experience an epiphany and decide that they're no longer going to fight on behalf of the bastards running the Regime.

Momentum gains for changing military culture: Many in uniform disagree with strategy.(A)

When Army Lt. Col. Paul Perrone met with his congressman to discuss what the officer sees as "a growing split between the civil and military culture," he got a simple solution.

"Quite frankly, I think the military's standards are too high," he quotes his congressman, Rep. Robert Wexler, Florida Democrat, as saying.

The incident with Mr. Wexler last summer, one of President Clinton's most resolute defenders on the House Judiciary Committee, is part of a growing debate.

In recent months, more officers have risked breaking the law by openly criticizing their commander in chief for his sexual misconduct. In turn, some public figures are suggesting the military's moralistic line on sex should give way to civilian decorum.

The movement has some momentum in liberal circles. Last year, Rep. Barney Frank, a homosexual, proposed legislation that would decriminalize consensual sex in the military, including adultery, and repeal the ban on sodomy.

Rep. Nita M. Lowey, New York Democrat, added, "They certainly don't conform to what most of us see in the norms of life and that's why we need an entire review. It just doesn't make any sense."

But adopting the popular culture for 1.4 million active-duty personnel would be a fatal mistake, current and former officers say.

"If it does, we're not going to end up with a military. It will fall apart in the long run," Col. Perrone said in an interview yesterday. "We can't be a civilian society. It doesn't work that way. I don't think most congressmen understand that because most of them haven't served.

"If you've got soldiers in the field that are sleeping together, whether they are male or female, it just tears down morale and ruins cohesion. It just creates tension and hurts discipline."

Mr. Wexler's office did not comment yesterday on Col. Perrone's account of the meeting with the congressman.

Radio talk-show host Oliver L. North, who led Marines into combat in Vietnam, said lowering standards "is a crazy idea."

"If we're going to deploy IBM employees and require them to live in the field working next to each other, carry their wounded, live aboard combat vessels, by all means let's make it the same standard," he said. "But if we're still going to require members of the armed forces to live miles from dependents, leaving spouses behind for months on end, then we better rethink whether we want the American military to live by the same standards of conduct."

Daniel Heimback, a former Navy lieutenant who teaches ethics at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in North Carolina, says he has witnessed "an increasing divide between military values and the culture."

"The problem is with the civilian culture, not with the military. The military culture is absolute keystone cold right and the civilian culture is wrong," he said.

Retired Rear Adm. Eugene Carroll, deputy director of the Center for Defense Information, cited a "double standard."

"Senior people who have gotten out of line have been covered up and their interests have been protected," he said.

The president's case, he said, reinforces the perception.

"They've seen corporals and sergeants and even an occasional lieutenant being court-martialed and subjected to discipline and there's the president's flagrant and disconcerting behavior. . . . I would say to try to excuse the president on this as purely personal behavior is wrong. It was official behavior because of the circumstances in which it took place," he said.

The armed forces imposes strict rules for personal conduct. Adultery and open homosexuality are outlawed. Socializing in the ranks is tightly regulated. Drug users get the boot.

But the civilian world has less stringent attitudes toward marriage cheats, homosexual sex and "recreational" drug use. For example, a Gallup poll showed 53 percent of Americans opposed the Air Force decision to court- martial pilot Kelly Flinn last year on charges of adultery, lying and disobeying a direct order. Even a top conservative, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, criticized the Air Force with this curt warning: "Get real."

Retired Lt. Gen. Ted Stroup said the age of the Internet has given young officers more opportunity to speak out. Gen. Charles C. Krulak, Marine commandant, regularly talks to Marines via electronic mail. Gen. Stroup said the superintendent of West Point, for the first time, takes e-mail criticism and comment from active-duty graduates.

"The conditions that exist in the country, whether you have Rush Limbaugh or Bill Clinton or George Bush as president, you're finding that more and more openness and candor are readily available from young officers, from Generation X," said Gen. Stroup, formerly the Army's deputy chief of staff for personnel.

Mr. Clinton's Oval Office affair with Monica Lewinsky, and other purported sexual indiscretions, has stirred unrest in the ranks.

The Marine Corps has investigated two officers for penning anti- Clinton rhetoric in the Navy Times and The Washington Times. The Navy Times article resulted in a formal warning to that officer on Friday. The Washington Times contributor is still under investigation for possibly violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice's Article 88. It forbids officers from making disparaging remarks about certain public officials.

amen. i have the utmost respect for those who have the courage of their convictions once they learn the truth.

In short, fuck them, one and all, from private to general. They joined because they thought they were going to kick some ay-rab ass, and now they pay the price. If those pics get released and the shit hits the fan and they get wiped out, I wont shed a tear. They asked for it, they get it.

It's not limited to rape. We murdered over a million of them. The generic thugs in uniform are the ones that carried out those murders, not prison guards. Wedding parties make for some great target practice. It's real easy, all you have to do is watch the video screen and push a button.

So don't look for them to suddenly get a conscience. They have no conscience. And they will be the same ones that will attempt to enforce martial law. I'd rather they die before they get that opportunity.

_________________________________________________________________________
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?”

Why would anyone in the military believe THEM when THEY identify this nation's enemies?

......and it's 'way beyond time for good Americans to know that our Military has become corrupted. It is no longer a moral force, a noble force; we no longer are impressed with the appellation 'an Officer and a Gentleman'. We no longer are impressed by the declaration that our Military is protecting us, protecting our Freedom. The bumper stickers to the contrary are frantic, trying to make the ugly truth go away. Our Military always needs a war "to punch the ticket" - to provide combat experience, thus enabling officers to rise in rank. Those Officers don't care one whit whether it is a necessary war - any war will do.

"The 'uniter' has brought the entire world together - to despise and deride us." lodwick