Posted on 05/05/2004 9:45:53 AM PDT by u-89
From the LRC Blog:
Whatever Happened to Hate Mail?
Posted by Lew Rockwell at 11:11 AM
When I wrote about the US spy plane in China a few years ago, and said China was within its rights to act as it did (and that the US claimed the right to shoot down such planes off its shores), I received more than 600 hate emails, including a number of death threats. I've also received plenty of hate mail in response to articles on Iraq. But over the last year, the number of such messages has dwindled. Yesterday's article on freeing Saddam resulted in many nice emails, and only two critical ones, and those were civil. There was no hate mail at all. Of course, the warmongers may have given up on me. But I think the most fervent have lost heart, and that is all to the good, since it presages even less public support for federal killing and maiming.
And here's the article -
The Status Quo Anteby Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
The US has lost the war. Now its efforts in Iraq will be defined for the history books by the photos of psychosexual torture methods used by US soldiers and civilian contractors in Baghdad. There is no avoiding this. The mask as moral liberator was ripped off long ago. The danger now is that the US presence will live up to the worst caricature of the most fundamentalist Islamic cleric. What must the US do to dig out of disaster? What must the US do to make it right? The US strategy now is to try to put the head back on the body by reinstalling former Baathists in positions of power. The fear, of course, is that this will only further infuriate the Shiites. Trying to sort through all this, the US is frantically studying how Saddam was able to maintain order and political stability, and doing its best to replicate this feat. The problem is that even Saddam's top henchmen cannot enjoy legitimacy if the public perceives them as tools of the US.
Clearly, nostalgia for Saddam is sweeping all sectors. The experience of Jasim Muhammad Saleh demonstrates this. He is a former general of Saddam's Republican Guard. When the US pulled back from Fallujah the first really smart thing the US has done in this entire war he drove into the city wearing his old uniform and was cheered. He was the de facto head of state in that city, his legitimacy deriving entirely from his association with the old regime. So too with the new commander of Iraq's army, Amer Bakr al-Hashimi, who publicly announced that he is "proud" to have served Saddam. What is the US to do? Making such statements only reinforces his status. Punishing him does the same. Replacing him will only destabilize matters more. Day by day, the US is realizing that the status quo ante is the only way out, but US officials are unsure how or to what extent it can go back.
In some way, there is no going back. Many thousands are dead and tens of thousands are wounded, civilians and soldiers. Mosques have been bombed and cities destroyed. The US made mass graves necessary. What was left of civilization in Iraq after the sanctions was nearly eradicated, and for no cause. There were no WMDs. There was no connection to 9-11. This war was a malevolent hoax.
Whatever war propaganda said about Saddam's evil has been turned back on the US: torture chambers, rape rooms, outlawing dissent, and all the rest. Yes, the troops ought to come home. When? As soon as they can get packed. The same goes for the phonies calling themselves the "Coalition Provisional Authority." All these bureaucrats need to admit is that they have no legitimacy at all, but rather acted as civilian cover for a martial law junta that ruled by blood and lies. Then the UN can work with Islamic clerics, the merchant class, and other Iraqi leaders to fill the void, not with force but with peace. And yet a straight pullout from Iraq at this point only goes so far. Iraq is left with devastation and death. A generation of Muslims has been taught by this war to hate and despise American influence. The hard core among them will be easy recruits in a terrorist army that will last until kingdom come, always threatening and always providing a pretext for our own government to increase its despotic control over American life. What can be done to prevent this awful scenario? The US government must apologize, or at least eat a truckload of humble pie. It needs to do everything possible to admit wrongdoing, through both symbolic and substantial acts of penance. This is essential for showing the Arab world that we too recognize that a grave injustice has been done. Insofar as it is possible, acts of public humility will help reverse the damage and help prevent acts of vengeance. But such expressions will only be symbolic. They need to be matched by substantive acts as well. Perhaps the US can assist in establishing something resembling a representative democracy in Iraq, or at least not deliver the final death blow of permitting an Islamic dictatorship to arise in what used to be the most liberally-minded nation in the region. This cannot be done by the US as such, but under the guidance of an international delegation of the sort that Jimmy Carter has led in the past, operating again under the aegis of the UN. This isn't just my idea. All people of good will (and, yes, that excludes the entire war cabal in the Bush administration) would immediately view this scenario as the most humane and viable transition from ghastly war to restorative peace.
At the same time, it is preposterous for anyone to speak of democracy in Iraq so long as Saddam Hussein is in an official spider hole. He was unseated on a basis that is contrary to all standards of legal conduct between nations. The US decided on its own that he should no longer be the president of Iraq the very thing all norms of international law are designed to prevent. No government needs to be permanent, but those who pose no threat to international peace should be managed, controlled, or overthrown by their own citizens. The end is unjustified by the means used. There is no moral nor legal basis (other than might makes right) for Saddam to be held by the US, much less subjected to a kangaroo court staffed by neoconservative conspirators. Saddam must be immediately released and escorted back to Iraq under the protection of an international delegation. At that point, Carter can supervise elections with Saddam among the candidates. And yes, its not impossible that he might win. Is this a shocking suggestion? Yes, and I hesitate to be the first one to say publicly what so many people including ex-government officials and long-time foreign policy commentators have been saying privately for months. But at some point, such thoughts will become commonplace. It is a fact that this war was unjust. Releasing him would at least concede that the US was wrong to wage it. This is the first step toward ending the bloodshed and terror. In fact, there is no other option for Iraq at this point. Phony polls aside, the US has made Saddam more popular than when he was in power. The US can choose between keeping Saddam locked up and thereby continue to stir the pot, leading to ever more violence, or it can release Saddam without any charges against him let alone by Ahmed Chalabi's son and have a hope for reconciliation and peace.
Let's deal with a number of objections to releasing Saddam. He is a tyrant, a liar, a killer, and the new Hitler. We've been hearing this for so long that it is tough to separate the truth from the war propaganda. It was the Bush administration and not Saddam that turned out to be lying about WMDs. As for the other charges, Putin is also a killer and a tyrant. He has killed "his own people" in Chechnya. The US doesn't dispute his legitimacy. In fact, the world is strewn with despots, many of them our allies. The US has no veto power over the leadership of countries in far corners of the world, much less the right to kidnap and try them. Yes, many Iraqis hated Saddam, but the US had no business deciding on its own to unseat him. That should be left to the Iraqi people. He will return to slaughter his enemies. In fact, he might well return anxious to disprove all the claims made against him. Under the eye of human rights organizations, the press, and the UN, he will have every incentive to behave in a humanitarian way. Even as head of state, he would face pressure to be liberally minded. His rule would be shaky at best; if it turns out to be short-lived, that's fine too, because the revolution would be from within. The US will lose credibility. Actually, the US has already lost credibility. A reversal on this scale is the only way to bring it back. It is also the last thing that al Qaeda wants, because it would remove a main source of its case for recruiting new terrorists. If the US turns on a dime to become reasonable, humanitarian, and peacefully minded, the terrorists lose rationale for a campaign of vengeance. And the US gains credibility by admitting the truth, and by undertaking a dramatic gesture to right history. This would reward despotism. It's hard to see how being released from captivity after having your sons slaughtered and your entire life destroyed is a reward for despotism. All it does is grant some small measure of international justice in an impossibly grotesque environment. Also, we must think about the message that keeping Saddam in prison sends. It says that the end justifies the means, and powerful states with WMDs like the US can get away with anything. That is not a good message for the world. The US will continue to pay for this disastrous war so long as it holds Saddam.
This would reverse the one decent accomplishment of the war. And so long as Saddam is in prison, the US will be free to claim that all the bloodshed and the bloody taxes at least accomplished this one great thing. The US government must be denied this prize. The Muslim world cannot continue to think that the US is self-satisfied or that the Bush administration got what it wanted in the end. If the US were required to return Saddam and pull out of Iraq, it would say to the world: aggression will not be rewarded. Yes, there are a thousand other issues to sort out. What about the billions in damage and theft? Who will compensate the families of the dead? What other actions can the US take that will encourage reconciliation? All these issues must be faced squarely and truthfully. It will be painful. But we must remember that this war has been ghastly, and that a future without justice will be more painful still. How will George Bush explain to the families of dead US soldiers why he is having to restore the status quo ante? He should begin with the tenth-century prayer said first by the powerful, who sought forgiveness for their sins: Confiteor Deo omnipotenti
mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. May 4, 2004 Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail] is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com and author of Speaking of Liberty.
Copyright © 2004 LewRockwell.com |
It's a test.
Walt
BTW Walt. It is messy over there. Hard things are always messy. But not as messy as the alternative would be in not so many years when the mess is measured in mega RADS in some city near you.
You, on the other hand, prefer the mob. Another MoveOn trait.
Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees
Probably annoying as h*ll. Is it harmful? How harmful? Like, do your skin fall off, is it poisonous to the point of killing you or making you sick?
Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time
Oh yes, I imagine that this would be pretty harmful given Iraqi temperatures.
Pouring cold water on naked detainees
Getting doused with cold water in a desert climate must be pure torture. Terrible.
Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair
Too bad. How much of a beating did the victim take? Bruised? Broken bones?
Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell
Getting medical attention is torture? Just wondering: does the guard (I assume that you know who it was) have some paramedic training? Was it a good stitch-up-job?
Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick
Sodomizing detainees isn't a good thing. There might have to be some payback for this one, if true. But I notice that you're saying "perhaps with a broom stick". Do you have all the details on this?
Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet
My heart bleeds profusely. Jumping on people's feet is just beyond the pale. Do you know if anyone suffered physical damage from this, and where can I find a verification of this incident?
Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees
Hmmm... there does seem to have been some pics of naked people floating around. Can you point out which ones are non-faked, and who took them?
Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing
You mean, photographing people in silly and humiliating positions, thereby offending muslim religion and libertarian sensibilities?
Forcing naked male detainees to wear womens underwear
I hate to break this to you, but detainees wearing women's underwear are hardly "naked". Who knows, it might even be a preference for certain editors close to your editor :).
Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped
More humiliating stuff. I suppose this should be cracked down on, if true. I presume that you know if it is true, and who the perp is. Share, please.
Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them
So were any Iraqis hurt or harmed in this stunt? How badly?
Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture
Seen this one, but can't really say anything but obviously a pose. Standing around in silly positions stuff. However, I don't think this person was naked - was wearing some kind of poncho or something, I think. Simulated torture????
A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee
Ah. I do think you must have gotten one of the fakes, from www.sexinwar.com in Budapest. My sympathies, and better luck on your next surf. Or.... do you have some substantiation for that one?
Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee
Working dogs? Not rabid or anything, I hope? Actually, I tend to believe anyone injured around a working dog probably did something stupid. Most bites are the fault of the bitten one. Disappointing as that may be, it's true. So, verifications. Names, who did what to who, where are the (verified) pictures and general evidence? How much is from al Jazeera, how much from al Arabya, how much from Lew Rockwell? And how much from any formal investigation?
> How much is from al Jazeera, how much from al Arabya, how much from Lew Rockwell? And how much from any formal investigation?
This is not what I am saying or any of the other sources you gratuitously mention. Read the green bit in my post again - it's from the official US Army report! Evrything on that list is cut and paste from the report - go to Drudge, MSNBC or any other news site and read it for yourself.
BTW the cold water on a naked body business is not as light as you make it out to be. Apparently they were naked in cold damp cells and hosed down and left to shiver for days. You try that at home and tell if it's torture 3 days from now.
LOL
Maybe it's because people who know he's got a screw loose don't bother reading his stuff.
The report mentions "allegations", I believe. Now, which are actually confirmed/proven?
We should threaten to translate Lew Rockwell articles into Arabic and carpet-bomb Iraq with them, if they don't shape up.
They'll play ball...
Sure, just as soon as his ashes have cooled!
(Lew Rockwell, you are a blithering idiot that is giving aid and comfort to our enemies in time of war. Sit down and STFU.)
--Boot Hill
Take care brother.
In May of 1864, we had a great leader.
In May of 2004, we don't.
Take care brother.
And to you.
Walt
Thread-jumping, are we?
Anyway, from this report nothing is clear except that
A: Some iraqis have been humiliated, which is probably a very effective way of getting life-and-death critical information. In fact, towards a muslim, it's more effective than torture. God forbid that a muslim should be inconvenienced to the point of ratting on his brethren waiting to blow up an American convoy or something, huh?
B: There are allegations of rape/soldiers having sex with female detainees. Huh? You know (or should know by now) that this is a fake story, from pictures put out by al Jazeera and al Arabya, coming from a porn studio in Budapest. Not directly, though: they were sold by an American porn company, which has now closed down its pages because of what happened. But people on this forum continue to peddle this story as true.
C: All of the soldiers mentioned in the report are suspects, which means that their guilt is yet to be determined.
You really have a problem with facts, don't you?
This is one of the few points I disagree with Lew on. I think there needs to be some presence of US forces to fix what we broke, if you will, but I would agree it needs to be done ASAP, as in yesterday. Then get the troops home and safe. Quit rooting around in the desert looking for invisible WMDs and quit trying to implement a form of government that won't last more than a decade or so.
Not many people at the time thought so. The Democrats hated him even more than they hate Bush today and the Republicans were convinced he would never win the election in November and tried to dump him.
Abe had very few friends in May of 64.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.