Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
but repetition can be useful.
In the case of Abu Ghraib, the problem of torture was not that it was being done (and denied). It was that there were pictures of it circulating publicly.
It was the pictures -- a kind of porn -- that got Bush and Cheney and Rummy and the Pentagon all in a lather and a froth, not what was being done to the captives.
And the first person tried and punished as I recall was either the person who took the pictures or the person who made and distributed the discs on which they were found.
So there is a kind of consistency, isn't there? As long as there are no publicly available pictures and video of it, anything goes?
Make-Believe Maverick
A closer look at the life and career of John McCain reveals a disturbing record of recklessness and dishonesty
Rolling Stone
By TIM DICKINSON
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain/page/8
A idea for a solution?
Write a bill? Starting Monday, today, that Penn. Ave., all the way from Capital Hill, and on down to Abe Lincoln statue?
Poor Abe. Birds pooh.
No blue birds singing.
Abe sitting in a cushioned seat all day with nothing to do? Northwestwoods? Page a Fannie and Freddie realtor... The law can change a street name. The Penn Ave. Road where the Criminals hang around lump it!
Penn Ave. Prison Street.
Call a locksmith to change the locks on all federal buildings on Penn Prison Ave.. throw away all the sticking keyboards.
Bush and his idiots live in the land of 'do as we say not as we do'.
So repugnant is their crimes, war crimes, that they are driven to over zealously pursue them in others.
Wasn't there a case regarding simulated kiddie porn a while ago?
The transference neurosis is incredible in these people although the judge could say that he was just 'following orders' and maybe he does find it morally repugnant that this stuff is going on but 'moral repugnance' is hardly a measure to effect a cleaning up of society. It's such an interpretive ideal. They need standards, documented standards. I doubt any will ever be developed.
The treatment, by Bushies, of Iraq and other prisoners is outside the purview of that case but it is not less ironic that they (Bushies) are seeing the ills of others when they are so depraved. I knew a few 'wingers' who while not 'getting off' sexually, were at least derived a great deal of excitement and an odd measure of pride after seeing the many pictures of the tortured 'prisoners'. They saw nothing wrong with terrorizing people that are deemed 'enemies' and expressed a desire to do it themselves. Just the idea that they were 'caught' was enough of an indictment for them to be tortured and killed if needed. It doesn't matter if they were 'caught' walking their dog or smoking a cigarette on a street corner. They were 'caught'. They were instantly guilty of some nefarious plot to attack the fatherland (homeland) and deserve to be 'dealt with'. Such absolutist thought is disturbing. Theoretically, anyone 'caught' is instantly guilty without trial, without appeal, with no decency and respect for their lives.
The immature need, drive if you will, to 'strike back' and 'hurt them that hurt us' is so very damaging. As we've seen in Israeli/Palestinian interactions, it only serves to up the ante and cause the other side to strike back harder and harder and to what goal? The urge to destroy the other side with superior forces is what escalates wars.
Humanity, to save itself, has to get over the idea that wars solve anything. They don't. They end up being just an attack on the environment. There is a Geneva Convention regarding the attack on opposition infrastructure that causes grave and extreme damage to the environment. Guess who didn't sign that article and does not recognize it. Bush.
I'm not surprised at the illogic of this case. It's like if Bush wanted to charge anyone with 'war crimes'. Coming from his jaundiced hand, that charge should be met with worldwide derision and laughter...
I saw porn once. Personally, I thought it was a bit over-rated XXX.
Modesty prevents me from commenting on Max Hardcore's work in question ...however,
I believe the broader point Glenn is making is best put forward in my book: The Iraq War and Impeachment of Bill Clinton, Chap. 1; The difference between a blow job and killing people.
bah.
*I am happy to see Cocktailhag! (*& that's not a pistol in my pocket.)
The transference neurosis is incredible in these people although the judge could say that he was just 'following orders' and maybe he does find it morally repugnant that this stuff is going on but ones own personal degree of 'moral repugnance' is hardly a measure to effect a cleaning up of society.
Isn't that what killed the many attempts to regulate pornography in the past?
Isn't war pornography? It appeals to the base instincts in people driven to a large extent by their base instincts.
I always found it a slamming condemnation of the goody goodies that the sight of a female breast or the flash of public hair was some how so much more dangerous than actors spraying bullets and blowing everything up. Somehow 'love' and 'sensuality' are dirty and death and violence and carnage are so much better for society. The MPAA should be in no way responsible for gauging the content of movies. See 'This Film Not Yet Rated' for an expose on the disgusting agenda of the MPAA and the reckless way they exert their power over Hollywood.
We DO have 'morality police'. They just don't club people on our street corners, yet...
As a charming aside, I got involved in a discussion with the spouse and some of her friends. They professed a need to 'cleanse the internet of all porn' and couldn't figure out why it couldn't be done. I said that it was a total waste of time and was soundly condemned as being 'supportive' of degrading women and of pornography in general.
I then pointed out that the Internets are filled with millions of systems. All you need is a computer and a domain name and you can start your own website. How can someone or something visit every computer and judge the content and shut it down? The task is monumental. Then, what standard do you use if you could actually find them. Some people find European statuary disgusting. Some find old master art disgusting. Who decides and what recourse does society have to see what they have discarded? Is it no different than the puritanical masses that took chisel and hammer to so many statues of the past? Is it any different than the Taliban shelling the reliefs carved into the sandstone walls in the desert?
Just because one person or a group of people find something objectionable does not give them the right to censor that from society at large.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
