I think that’s a pretty weak analogy, given that “It’s just a few bad apples,” is offered as a defense of a military heirarchy with a Commander-in-Chief at its head. It’s a piss-poor defense, too, given that before GWB assured everyone that “Instructions went out to our people to adhere to law… That ought to comfort you,” the White House solicited legal analysis from John Bybee that redefined ‘torture’ in such a way that was calculated to allow just about any extremity.
Beyond that, knock yourself out. Letter of the law.
There are more and more indications that the abuses at Abu Ghraib are institutional.
It would be a closer analogy to ask if characterizing the 19 hijackers as “just a few bad apples,” absolves al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, rather than a vague ethnic category.
Why has Sy Hersh dropped this description of the rape in the middle of a speech, rather than staying quiet until his article has been written? Why would he leak his most shocking material - is this a standard journalistic procedure?
Does anyone know if there is an article on this topic coming out soon? If so, any idea when or where - the New Yorker, I presume.
This is very odd news, really. Its not exactly breaking news, the rumors have been around ever since Rummy’s droll little hint about stuff much worse in the offing. His phrasing, IIRC, was about “murder and worse”. Is baby rape worse than murder? Is in my book, but mileage varies.
My wild ass guess? Hersh is talking to people who already know what we are just now being shocked about, an ACLU convention. Lots of lawyers, reporters, that sort. Better informed than we. People who aren’t surprised that this isn’t getting a lot of coverage in the tedia, who are probably afraid to touch it, fearing that it will be revealed to be a hoax, and they’ll look like liberal media jumping on a sensational story to embarass the regime.
P.S. Tomorrows New Yorker isn’t up yet, frequently gets up Sunday night, but not always. Maybe this story scares the NY staff, Sy Hersh has a solid rep, but this stuff is poison and dynamite, whichever way it breaks.
Ok, I’ve been thinking about this for a while, so how about this for a WAG: Hersh is floating the idea and seeing how it goes. He’s putting it out in front of an audience that’s very likely to be on his side in this matter, so that bit of the delivery is safe, he’s not under the control of any editorial board and won’t hurt his magazine if the story sours, as it would if he published in the New Yorker at first. He / his editors are now monitoring how it spreads through the blogosphere and whether it filters into any Western media before they decide whether or not to put it out as a full story.
Another WAG - he’s hoping to put more pressure on a vital source by saying “we’re on to you…”.
Yet another WAG - he wants the Pentagon / White House to issue a denial, so he can get them for ordering paedophilic rape AND lying about it. Though I don’t see why anyone would give a damn about the lies, if paedophilic rape is proven, so this is probably a weak guess.
I think you are on the scent, Lambchop, but there’s something missing. Yes, the ACLU is probably more sympathetic an audience than he might find just anywhere, but not spectacularly so. I suspect that, even as lefty as they may be, they are much like myself: the last thing they want to hear is another dreadful and disheartening story about our people. Things are bad enough, no need to look for more.
As well, just as I said, this is not a “scoop”, there are enough rumors about, and reports in the foreign press, to render that impossible. This story hit the German press more than a week ago. Perhaps the real story lies in the silence of our own servile tedia. At any rate, he is not jealously guarding it, as he might if he had a real exclusive, it would have Pulitzer written all over it. As good a reporter as Mr. Hersh is, I don’t credit the notion that he doesn’t care about that. Of course, I don’t know him from Adam, but he’s a reporter, so its a pretty good guess.
So my guess is similar to yours: he is trying to get the story out in more than one way, he doesn’t want to be the only guy holding this bag of shit if it all blows up. The Bushiviks would just love a story like this to be spread about, and then thoroughly disproved, Faux News would talk about it for a month before they took a breath, and they would mention his name every third word.
If there was something about to appear in the New Yorker or some other major US news source, wouldn’t its existence and likely publication time be leaked ahead of time?
That is, if there’s something that’s going to be in the next online edition of the New Yorker, which is apparently coming soon, wouldn’t we know it was coming, or at least know something along the lines of “Seymour Hersh has a big story coming out re Abu Ghraib in the next New Yorker”? So if we don’t know this yet, would it mitigate against the story breaking properly in the next few days?
Well, yeah, but the story has more or less “broke”, its been published overseas. Doesnt seem to be a big HAD (hairy ass deal) developing over it, which, by my reckoning, there by God ought to! Has the Arab press covered it? Al Jazz? Dunno. Probably could find out if I weren’t so lazy and easily …look! Shiny!
It looks like big news with talk of new allegations every day, meetings with Bremer, yet it’s gotten very little stateside coverage.
How about that lame excuse for delaying tactics in the last line? It’s flying.
People want it to fly either for political reasons, or because they don’t want to know the truth.
published in foreign media outlets, and leaking into our consciousness, before America becomes willing to ask collectively and forcefully, “What the hell have we been doing over there?”. Once that starts to happen, Hersh can publish, and only then do we have a chance to finally get to the bottom of this cesspool.
I wonder if FireMarshall Bucca’s family agrees to the use his name’s been put? Someone should interview them and see.
The cat’s out of the bag; all that’s left for us to see is the extent to which the story is suppressed in the US. My guess is quite a hell of an awful lot.
And who will be the celestial pundit who once again floats the idea that this is a result of the loose sexual mores of Bill Clinton? Limbaugh, Coulter, O’Reilly; the red-state nation looks to you to defend the indefensible.
Um, you guessed wrong. It actually broke in the US. Hersh has been telling this story since early May. Of course, the thread title is factually incorrect, and Hersh has so far offered no tangible evidence, but still.
You don’t know what you are talking about. Carl seems a bit eccentric, but certainly not insane. And he doesn’t put up this news, it’s a community driven site. The requirements for putting up stuff tend to be fairly strict, the site in fact usually sacrifices reporting speed for accuracy. not to mention all the supporting links in the story. So rest assured, it ain’t fake.
The thread title is correct in substance. There is no moral difference between doing the raping or doing the videotaping. If Americans watched and videotaped while chilren were being raped, then they were accsessories to the rape. Child pornographers are still child molesters.
I don’t know what you woul expect in the way of “tangible” evidence from a reporter. Hersh can’t post the videotapes himself but he he can report what he knows about them, directly or indirectly. It sounds to me, from his description of the children screaming on the soundtrack, like he’s seen them himself.
Officials in the Pentagon, WH and Senate have already conceded that the worse is yet to come and that the crimes at AG included rape. They also have not denied any of Hersh’s allegations about child rape, which is as good as a concession to me.
Ultimately, all a reporter really has is his reputation and you just have to decide whether a given reporter has any basic credibility. Sy Hersh does. He is very well respected and has no history of being wrong before, certainly not for inventing wild accusations out of whole cloth. I see no reason to insinuate that the man is lying.
Is anybody else absolutely astonished that they would actually videotape this happening? What is the name of Christ was their goal in recording it for posterity? I’m personally glad they did, so the harshest punishments can be doled out, but what was their reason to tape it? It wasn’t for ‘America’s Funniest Home Videos’, I assume.
Was it to have souvenirs from the war? After Gulf War 1 I saw a photo album a soldier made of all the corpses he saw and/or created. Was it kinda like that?
Or maybe it was to show to other prisoners, to demonstrate what their captors were capable of?
It might have had legitimate motives. Might have been “I’ll tape this, and when someone in authority sees this, heads will roll and this shit will stop.”
Were I there, standing a post, I would hope that I would bring my weapon to bear, and say something like “Get up off of that kid right now before I paint the wall with your baby-fucking brains.” I hope so, but I wasn’t, and I’m not.