Skip to main content

View Diary: Kids sodomized at Abu Ghraib, Pentagon has the videos - Hersh (430 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't know what to believe. (none)
    How can I, given what we're being told now? I don't know which way is up anymore.

    But the truth is that it will make a difference to some people if American personnel are not committing these acts. And if there's nothing evident in the videos that proves that Americans were doing the filming, it has that much more trouble breaking through.

    If those aren't Americans in the video, we're going to be accused of being all kinds of crazy.

    We'll still be right, but that's what we're looking at. Somehow, in their minds, it "won't count."

    •  I don't know how old you are. (4.00)
      I recall you were very dogmatic, rigid, in the primaries.  
      Follow this story as it unfolds.  Follwo it all the way for years.  You will learn the long arc of an intense and complex story.  It sits at the tip of the whole history of the country.  really it does...

      Then you will begin to be able to recognise early on how to follow stories, in the early short arcs, in a story at the very heart of nation.  The long arc truth will prove out your gut on the short arcs.

      Or ignore my advice.  But that is how I learned.

      I guess we have Gen. Boykin Rules of Engagement: our god is bigger.

      by Marisacat on Wed Jul 14, 2004 at 09:13:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Marisacat, This is Uncalled For (none)
        I don't see anything in Kagro X's posts on this to indicate any heartlessness or effort to minimize the effect or seriousness of this issue.  It was a legitimate question, not one that would lead to a minimization of the offense, but a serious and legitimate question about how this is likely to play.

        Besides, I think you've been perceptive and extremely well-informed on the Abu Ghraib story, and I also think you yourself were occassionally "dogmatic, rigid, in the primaries."  The second point has no inherent connection to the first, so it's a non-sequiter on this subject.

        But maybe we're just too young and naive to understand this, huh?

        •  To Think This Is Still On Going. (none)
          My.  But I notice an interesting new poster, now that I am in this thread, so there is collateral payoff.  

          DH, I had a father and he was not authoritarian:  I do not respond to the model when it is ushered out.

          My post is clear.  I am not the one left saying, "I don't know what to believe" after many weeks since the Hersh/CBS/AG/ICRC/Toguba break approx. Apr 29, following a year of leakage.
          I leave it at that.

          I guess we have Gen. Boykin Rules of Engagement: our god is bigger.

          by Marisacat on Fri Jul 16, 2004 at 12:35:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Are you out of your gourd? (none)
            I am not the one left saying, "I don't know what to believe" after many weeks since the Hersh/CBS/AG/ICRC/Toguba break approx. Apr 29, following a year of leakage.

            Is that what you're hanging your hat on? A cliche?

            You seriously believe that my statement can fairly be taken to mean that I would defend dismissing the allegations of rape altogether?

            Come on. Get off it. That's ridiculous.

          •  Ongoing? (none)

            Time elapsed between Kagro X post and Marisacat's resort to ageism = 52 minutes

            Time elapsed between Marisicat's resort to ageism and my reply = 25 minutes

            Time elapsed between my reply and Marisacat's insinuation that my post is an example of something, undefined, as "ongoing" = 1,617 minutes

            Relevance of one's father, invoking authoritarianism to deflect a request for simple courtesy and respect and to not resort to ageism, cryptic allusions to unnamed posters = unknown

            Resort to literal interpretation of a cliche' = addressed by Kagro X

            Marisacat's decision to not concede an honest mistake of interpretation or at least ignore the complaint, but instead make a failed attempt to wound with a unclever bon mot= disappointing

      •  Processing... processing... (4.00)
        I'm really not sure how to take this, Marisacat.

        I appreciate DHinMI springing to my defense here, but frankly I don't know if I recognize a message coherent and pertinent enough in this particular comment to concern myself with.

        You don't know how old I am, that's true. And I'm not at all sure that the reference to my age is necessarily an insulting one. But I'm also unsure exactly what it is about asking who the perpetrators actually were and how that might or might not be used by apologists to blunt the impact of the story that would lead you to assume that I can't follow the arc of a story.

        I can't even begin to fathom why dogmatism or rigidity during the primaries ought to be of interest to anyone, even if it were true. For the sake of argument, I wouldn't mind seeing you defend that remark, though. Unless you think that a failure to back Howard Dean is evidence enough. Res ipsa loquitur, as it were. In fact, I refrained from stridently backing anyone here on dKos, and ended up voting for Edwards in the Virginia primary. The only rigid position I recall occupying was that the Howard Dean phenomenon had a lot to accomplish and a lot to prove before I would accept it as the Revolution. My hesitancy had a lot more to do with mechanics than with ideology.

        The only other thing I can think of is that you're taking my turn of phrase, "I don't know what to believe anymore," more literally than I had intended. I do know what to "believe in," which is entirely different. And I know what I "believe" about the small parts of the story we know so far. But arc or no arc, there's nothing we know about this story so far that's so rock solid with respect the facts I inquired about that it would justify, for instance, the nonsense I got from gogol, below. Perhaps he feels better for having seized the spotlight of righteousness, but I still don't know the actual answer to my question, and neither does he.

        But in any case, I should think that 36 years and having learned about the "arcs" of stories a the knee of my father, a Vietnam-era draft counselor and public defender might suffice, in terms of minimum basic skills.

        That said, I'm not sure where in your comment you actually answer my question. It sounds like sage advice, to be sure. But not like an answer.

        •  She wasn't insulting you (none)
          You misread her comment, which is not about you, but about our history and how we learn it.

          Several posters have made the same point.  We are not talking white noise here -- this goes to the heart of what we think we are as a nation, how we define ourselves, both for ourselves and our children. The torture, the Gulags, the assertion of Presidential sovereignty, the evident disregard at the top of our administration that law is a binding constraint, all that is part of this discussion.

          It's not about you.

          •  But she wasn't answering me, either. (none)
            Actually, I thought I was pretty clear about hedging my bets on the question of insult.

            Though I'm not sure how else to take the accusations of rigidity and dogmatism. But I don't think they have anything whatsoever to do with the question I asked or the discussion we're having.

            What you've added to the conversation is, again, thoughtful, but not particularly relevant to my question. If we take it as a given that "we are not talking about white noise here," and all the rest, what does that tell me with respect to who it was that was doing the raping?

            Everyone wants to give me a metaphysics lecture, but nobody wants to tell me who did it. They all want to give me the Noam Chomsky treatment about what the meaning of the word "did" is.

            There's a simple answer to the factual question out there somewhere. I'm with ya on the meta. But what are the facts?

            •  on the information (none)
              that's currently available to us here and to the general public, ISTM nobody's answering your question because nobody here knows the answer yet. I think some of us reacted to the speculative part of your post -- the 'what-if' it wasn't Americans who physically perpetrated child rape (just allowed/watched/filmed it) -- and I do understand what I took to be your fear that if so, many Americans would take that as a "get-out-of-jail-free" card. I don't think there are many here who think that is acceptable, but I'm inclined to believe that the 40% would indeed jump at the chance to salve their vestigial consciences this way. Maybe it's a good thing to be forewarned about this possibility, and discuss it in the context of preventing such an idea from taking hold.
            •  I'm at a loss. This happened at Abu Ghraib (none)
              but you don't know whether Americans did it?

              If you want to know how far up the chain of command it went, read Sy Hersh's New Yorker articles, or wait for his book (someone said due in October).  But the news reports on position papers and executive orders on torture and interrogation techniques make it clear that responsibility goes all the way up the chain, to the very top.

              •  Thank you, excellent idea. (none)
                See my response below. It was Sy Hersh's May 17th article in the New Yorker that mysteriously led me to believe that Americans may not have been the ones commiting these acts of sodomy.

                The language is kind of tricky, but I have to admit that I fell for the part where Sy wrote that, "The officials said there also was a videotape, apparently shot by U.S. personnel, showing Iraqi guards raping young boys."

                I can't imagine why I would make such a foolish mistake. In fact, one might say, "I'm at a loss."

          •  Except of course (none)
            the part of about him/her having been rigid and dogmatic in the primaries.  That was about him/her, I'd have to say.

            "By focusing fear and hatred on the Tutsi, the organizers hoped to forge solidarity among Hutu." -- Human Rights Watch

            by a gilas girl on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 02:46:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site