![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
forsythI figure I ought to fess up. I cannot honestly understand why anyone with access to publicly available knowledge could knowingly vote for George W. Bush.
Why do I say that? Well, there's plenty of reasons, but the one that gets the most visceral reaction from me is torture. Abu Ghraib,including the ones the President and Congress are making sure we won't see, to "keep the troops out of danger". (Photos that even Donald Rumsfeld admits exist. "There are a lot more photographs and videos that exist. If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse.") It's not "a few bad apples". It's not something secret, even. The military has investigated and found widespread torture. The FBI investigated and found widespread torture. The Washington Post Reports that soldiers created "wish lists" of "harsh interrogation" methods.
It's not just a few pictures of "fraternity hazing". It's not just Abu Ghraib. It's happening in Guantanamo, Afghanistan, Iraq (including Abu Ghraib, still) and other secret CIA locations. And including people we take and "render" to other governments to torture. To places like, say, Egypt. (see Katherine's series over on Obsidian Wings)
It's not isolated. It's not something unusual. It's impossible to believe that this wasn't known and sanctioned at the highest levels of the chain of command. We've been fucking torturing people. And Bush has been excusing it, justifying it, and appointing people to enforce the the laws of the US who believe torture's appropriate, and part of the President's powers. There is no deinability.
And the sickest part? The absolutely sickest part? Most of the people who've been tortured are innocent, or know nothing useful. What's some random guy picked up in a sweep in Afghanistan three years ago know about Al Queda that's any use today? We've released a number of people from Guantanamo, because we had no reason to hold them. Because they were innocent. We never bothered to hold tribunals to figure out if they were any danger. In Abu Ghraib, up to 80% of the people could easily be innocent. Most of them were just swept up for being nearby when something happened. You tell me how a 19 year old kid is supposed to tell an Iraqi civilian from an insurgent when they've lived most of their life in Kansas, or Minnesota, or somewhere. Our military and almost certainly the CIA, have been torturing innocent people. In our name. WE HAVE BEEN TORTURING INNOCENT PEOPLE. Bush knows this. And has done nothing to prevent it, only weasel and try to justify it. There's no way he could not know. Just look at all the documents the ACLU has gotten. This was known. THEY KNEW WE WERE TORTURING INNOCENT PEOPLE.
That is why I can't understand how someone could in good conscience vote for Bush. Voting for a man who APPROVED TORTURE. And ordered it. Torture. That's not America. And to their credit, most of our military knows it. But there's some, motivated by revenge, or fear, or "just following orders," or who knows what, that don't. And they've been helped by people above them. A quote, from the Washington Post article I linked... " A military intelligence staff sergeant who supervised the interrogators said a "fear up" approach had been approved for the interrogation. The unnamed sergeant wrote in a rebuttal to a reprimand that senior leaders were blurring the lines between official enemy prisoners of war and terrorists not afforded international protection.
"This situation is made worse with messages from higher echelons soliciting lists of alternative interrogation techniques and the usage of phrases such as 'the gloves are coming off,' " he wrote. "
And no one has been held accountable. Where are the trials? Where's the observers, to make sure it doesn't happen again? Nowhere. Because Bush doesn't care. Or he thinks it's "necessary". Or some other reason I can't figure.
I see a "Bush '04" sticker on a car, I go, "Did that person vote for torture? Do they not know, or do they just not care?" Because it's possible they're ignorant, though it'd have to be willful ignorance. Despite the shitty job our media's done of investigating and pressuring this, more than enough came out. "It's just a few bad apples", Bush said, and they believed it, they had to believe it. Because the alternative is horrible. And the media didn't bring it up. John Fucking Kerry didn't bring it up. He never mentioned in the debates, "Mr. Bush, why haven't you taken action on torture?" "What about Abu Ghraib?" "Why are we torturing innocent people?" It was NEVER brought up. I don't know why. Calculation? Cowardice? Did they figure it would be a losing issue? That people wouldn't care? That people wouldn't care that we were TORTURING INNOCENT PEOPLE? "September 11th changed everything." Sure. If it really made 50%+1 of the population of America willing to dismiss torture, then the terrorists have, indeed, won.
The only possible other reason I could see is if something else outweighed it. I can't see anything else that would. The only one I can give even the slightest weight to would be the anti-abortion fringe, who think we've been "murdering babies" for years, stopping that could maybe seem more important than torture. Even if their moral calculus is horribly warped. And anything else, I shudder to think.
A couple closing quotes, from the article about why we won't see the other photos... "By that time, the executive and legislative branches had learned their lesson: Don't release images. The day after the Berg video, members of Congress were allowed to see a slide show of 1,800 Abu Ghraib photographs. The overwhelming response, besides revulsion, was, in the words of Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner (R-Va.), that the pictures "should not be made public." "I feel," Warner said, "that it could possibly endanger the men and women of the armed forces as they are serving and at great risk."" That's my Senator. Now you see why I practically puke when I have to write to him as "the honorable". That's not honor. That's covering your ass. Covering your ass and taking no action.
"As The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto put it, with great cynicism and possibly great accuracy, "if the Democrats really think that belaboring complaints about harsh treatment of the enemy is the way to 'score points with the public,' they're more out of touch than we thought."" And if that guy's right, if the public really is that desensitized to the fact we've been TORTURING INNOCENT FUCKING PEOPLE, then frankly, the United States is already dead and lost to the ages, just a zombie corpse with no brain, no heart, nothing, lurching about in a hideous parody of the values it once stood for.
Tags: Mindscribbles, Politics
Why do I say that? Well, there's plenty of reasons, but the one that gets the most visceral reaction from me is torture. Abu Ghraib,including the ones the President and Congress are making sure we won't see, to "keep the troops out of danger". (Photos that even Donald Rumsfeld admits exist. "There are a lot more photographs and videos that exist. If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse.") It's not "a few bad apples". It's not something secret, even. The military has investigated and found widespread torture. The FBI investigated and found widespread torture. The Washington Post Reports that soldiers created "wish lists" of "harsh interrogation" methods.
It's not just a few pictures of "fraternity hazing". It's not just Abu Ghraib. It's happening in Guantanamo, Afghanistan, Iraq (including Abu Ghraib, still) and other secret CIA locations. And including people we take and "render" to other governments to torture. To places like, say, Egypt. (see Katherine's series over on Obsidian Wings)
It's not isolated. It's not something unusual. It's impossible to believe that this wasn't known and sanctioned at the highest levels of the chain of command. We've been fucking torturing people. And Bush has been excusing it, justifying it, and appointing people to enforce the the laws of the US who believe torture's appropriate, and part of the President's powers. There is no deinability.
And the sickest part? The absolutely sickest part? Most of the people who've been tortured are innocent, or know nothing useful. What's some random guy picked up in a sweep in Afghanistan three years ago know about Al Queda that's any use today? We've released a number of people from Guantanamo, because we had no reason to hold them. Because they were innocent. We never bothered to hold tribunals to figure out if they were any danger. In Abu Ghraib, up to 80% of the people could easily be innocent. Most of them were just swept up for being nearby when something happened. You tell me how a 19 year old kid is supposed to tell an Iraqi civilian from an insurgent when they've lived most of their life in Kansas, or Minnesota, or somewhere. Our military and almost certainly the CIA, have been torturing innocent people. In our name. WE HAVE BEEN TORTURING INNOCENT PEOPLE. Bush knows this. And has done nothing to prevent it, only weasel and try to justify it. There's no way he could not know. Just look at all the documents the ACLU has gotten. This was known. THEY KNEW WE WERE TORTURING INNOCENT PEOPLE.
That is why I can't understand how someone could in good conscience vote for Bush. Voting for a man who APPROVED TORTURE. And ordered it. Torture. That's not America. And to their credit, most of our military knows it. But there's some, motivated by revenge, or fear, or "just following orders," or who knows what, that don't. And they've been helped by people above them. A quote, from the Washington Post article I linked... " A military intelligence staff sergeant who supervised the interrogators said a "fear up" approach had been approved for the interrogation. The unnamed sergeant wrote in a rebuttal to a reprimand that senior leaders were blurring the lines between official enemy prisoners of war and terrorists not afforded international protection.
"This situation is made worse with messages from higher echelons soliciting lists of alternative interrogation techniques and the usage of phrases such as 'the gloves are coming off,' " he wrote. "
And no one has been held accountable. Where are the trials? Where's the observers, to make sure it doesn't happen again? Nowhere. Because Bush doesn't care. Or he thinks it's "necessary". Or some other reason I can't figure.
I see a "Bush '04" sticker on a car, I go, "Did that person vote for torture? Do they not know, or do they just not care?" Because it's possible they're ignorant, though it'd have to be willful ignorance. Despite the shitty job our media's done of investigating and pressuring this, more than enough came out. "It's just a few bad apples", Bush said, and they believed it, they had to believe it. Because the alternative is horrible. And the media didn't bring it up. John Fucking Kerry didn't bring it up. He never mentioned in the debates, "Mr. Bush, why haven't you taken action on torture?" "What about Abu Ghraib?" "Why are we torturing innocent people?" It was NEVER brought up. I don't know why. Calculation? Cowardice? Did they figure it would be a losing issue? That people wouldn't care? That people wouldn't care that we were TORTURING INNOCENT PEOPLE? "September 11th changed everything." Sure. If it really made 50%+1 of the population of America willing to dismiss torture, then the terrorists have, indeed, won.
The only possible other reason I could see is if something else outweighed it. I can't see anything else that would. The only one I can give even the slightest weight to would be the anti-abortion fringe, who think we've been "murdering babies" for years, stopping that could maybe seem more important than torture. Even if their moral calculus is horribly warped. And anything else, I shudder to think.
A couple closing quotes, from the article about why we won't see the other photos... "By that time, the executive and legislative branches had learned their lesson: Don't release images. The day after the Berg video, members of Congress were allowed to see a slide show of 1,800 Abu Ghraib photographs. The overwhelming response, besides revulsion, was, in the words of Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner (R-Va.), that the pictures "should not be made public." "I feel," Warner said, "that it could possibly endanger the men and women of the armed forces as they are serving and at great risk."" That's my Senator. Now you see why I practically puke when I have to write to him as "the honorable". That's not honor. That's covering your ass. Covering your ass and taking no action.
"As The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto put it, with great cynicism and possibly great accuracy, "if the Democrats really think that belaboring complaints about harsh treatment of the enemy is the way to 'score points with the public,' they're more out of touch than we thought."" And if that guy's right, if the public really is that desensitized to the fact we've been TORTURING INNOCENT FUCKING PEOPLE, then frankly, the United States is already dead and lost to the ages, just a zombie corpse with no brain, no heart, nothing, lurching about in a hideous parody of the values it once stood for.
Tags: Mindscribbles, Politics
