"I don't mean to be dodging the question, although it's kinda convenient in this case."
Hah. So classic. Way to go there, Prez.
Consequences from Abu Ghraib:
Soldiers said that they were “just following orders.” Word of this has waaaay increased membership in terrorist organizations.
Logical conclusions:
Why haven’t there been more serious consequences?
The Bush Administration cites two factors.
First, Private Contractors were hired to conduct the “interrogations” in Iraq.
These contractors are not subject to military law.
Secondly, different countries have different rules of law. There are different uniform Codes of Conduct in both Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (another holding facility).
The American Government officially does “not torture” and should thereby not be responsible for the prisoner abuse at either place.
Soooo then, exactly who is responsible?
Which code of law should punish the transgressors?
My conclusions:
The events of Abu Ghraib seems to demonstrate the impressionability and obedience of people when provided with a legitimizing ideology, social power, and institutional support.
Or as one Lord Acton once remarked, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Comments