Betrayed by images of our own racism

May 7, 2004

An Illegal and Immoral War
Betrayed by Images of Our Own Racism

By ROBERT FISK

First, our enemies created the suicide bomber. Now, we have our own digital suicide bomber, the camera. Just look at the way US army reservist Lynndie England holds the leash of the naked, bearded Iraqi. Take a close look at the leather strap, the pain on the prisoner's face. No sadistic movie could outdo the damage of this image. In September 2001, the planes smashed into the buildings; today, Lynndie smashes to pieces our entire morality with just one tug on the leash.

The Muslim suicide bomber cries Allahu Akbar, God is great. And what does Specialist Charles Graner--Lynndie's partner-in-crime, the man who appears in several of the torture photographs posing with Lynndie behind a pyramid of naked Iraqi prisoners--do back home in Pennsylvania. Why, his garden is plastered with a legend from the Book of Hosea, about sowing and righteousness and ploughing.

Could ever Islam have come so intimately into contact with the sexuality of the Old Testament? Could neo-conservative Christianity--Lynndie is also a churchgoer--have collided so violently, so revoltingly, so obscenely with Islam?

And who were the innocent in these vile photographs? The American torturers and humiliators? Or the Iraqi victims?

President Bush is fearful of Arab reaction to these pictures. Why? For a year now, Iraqis have been trying to tell journalists of the brutal treatment they are receiving at the hands of their occupiers. They don't need these incriminating photographs to prove to them what they already know to be true.

But, in the history of the Middle East, these pictures already have the status of those most damaging snapshots of the Vietnam war: the police chief in Saigon executing his Vietcong prisoner, the naked girl burnt by napalm, the pile of bodies at My Lai. For Arabs, read Deir Yassin and the corpses piled in the Palestinian refugee camp of Sabra and Chatila in 1982.

Not long after the occupation of Baghdad in April of last year, we got our hands on videotape of the whipping of Iraqi prisoners by Saddam's security police.

I'm not sure which circle of hell the victims were enduring in the 45 minutes of sadism which I still have on one tape. They are whipped, they are kicked into sewers and they cower like dogs. And why were these war crimes filmed? I thought at first that it was intended for the enjoyment of Saddam or his disgusting son Uday. But now I realise the videos were taken so that the prisoners could be humiliated. Their suffering, their pathetic pleas for mercy were to be recorded--to add the final layer of degradation to their fate. And now I realise, too, that the pictures of the Iraqis so cruelly treated--so tortured--by the Americans, were taken for precisely the same reason.

Someone decided that the photos would be the final straw, the breaking point, the moment of capitulation for these young men. Make them simulate oral sex. Make them look at the penis of their best friend. Get a girl to admire their attempted erection. This was truly Saddamite in its perversity. So let's, as the Americans say, get real. Who taught Lynndie and her boyfriend and the other American sadists of Abu Ghraib prison to do this?

I used to ask who taught the Syrian and Iraqi secret police to do this. The answer to the latter question was simple: the East German secret police. But the answer to the first question? Well, we have been told that there were "contracted" interrogators at Abu Ghraib.

I have reason to believe General Janis Karpinski, the luckless prison commander who is going to be dumped out of the army for interrogations over which she had no control, knew "outsiders" were questioning her inmates. She was never allowed into the interrogation room. And I can see why. So, no doubt, can she.

So who were these mysterious "interrogators"? If they were not CIA or FBI staff, who were they? Several names are already doing the rounds--journalists claim they have no final proof--and a number, I understand, hold more than one passport. Why were they brought to Abu Ghraib? Who brought them? How much are they paid? And who trained them?

Who taught them it was a good idea to get a girl to point at an Arab who was being forced to masturbate, to humiliate an Iraqi by hooding him with a girl's lingerie?

We are not just talking "sick" here. We're talking professionals. President Bush at last apologised yesterday to the Arab world for this filth--only, no doubt, because of the latest picture on the front of The Washington Post--but the constant, insistent refrain from US officers that these were a tiny group of unrepresentative Americans makes me very suspicious.

Lynndie and her boyfriend were not part of a "rogue" unit. They were told to do these despicable things. They were encouraged. This was an order from someone. Who? When can we see their pictures, their identity, their passports, their orders?

Yes, it's part of a culture, a long tradition that goes back to the Crusades; that the Muslim is dirty, lascivious, unChristian, unworthy of humanity--which is pretty much what Osama bin Laden (now forgotten by Mr Bush, I notice) believes about us Westerners. And our illegal, immoral, meretricious war has now brought forth the images that betray our racism.

The hooded man with the wires attached to his hands has now become an iconic portrait, every bit as memorable as the picture of the second aircraft flying into the World Trade Centre. No, of course, we haven't killed 3,000 Iraqis. We've killed many more. And the same goes for Afghanistan.

Robert Fisk is a reporter for The Independent and author of Pity the Nation. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch's hot new book, The Politics of Anti-Semitism.

[GoodSpeak]

OK, Chris.

I honestly think you're doing a fair imitation of Don Quixote here, you know...tilting at windmills.


Explain to me, please, how 45 minutes of torture of Iraqi soldiers is comparable to decades of abject and vile abuse, false imprisonment and acts of torture of innocent victims and non-combatants.


Here's to going over the top.

[GoodSpeak]

"Make them look at the penis of their best friend." ???


How would the reporter know this, eh?


Buddy, you have got to stop posting this kind of bullshit because it makes the job of the rest of us working to unseat Bush that much more difficult to sell.


Enough, already.




C'mon, man.



Please?

First of all, Tim, I posted the piece, I didn't write it.

Now, having said that, let me point out to you (and this has already been mentioned by me) that while Saddam's atrocities were greater in volume and performed over a greater length of time, he never claimed to be an angel. One expected this sort of thing from him, not from us. Why? Because we make it a point to tell the world how wonderful we are (that, of course, is not entirely as advertised). Bush, having brought us into this mess by lying about WMDs had to come up with another excuse when the WMD deceit was exposed. So, he decided that we were in Iraq to "liberate" its people and bring them "democracy." Well, Tim, it turned out to be an odd version of democracy, which the Iraqis found out when the Bush people closed down two newspapers, because they didn't like what they printed. There were other indications that this was an unusual form of "democracy," but when our own military continued Saddam's torture tradition at Abu Ghraib prison, there was no longer doubt: the good guys, the "liberators," the people who had descended upon Iraq from a self-proclaimed moral high ground were as brutal as anything Saddam had come up with.

Of course, there was one difference that stood out: the hypocrisy.

No, Tim, we have not seen U.S. dug mass graves, but we have seen more than enough. According to Rumsfeld, there's more to come, and new reports indicate that our people--glorified though they may be--are also capable of killing their victims.

I know that this is not something most of us face easily, but we have to stop deluding ourselves. We have to think back to remind ourselves that we have a long history of brutality and senseless killing. We also have a long history of saying to ourselves that the lynchings, the name-calling, the racism and bigotry belong to the few. Notice how quickly these stiff-necked generals, Pentagon civilians, and Republicans began to emphasize that the photos represent the misdeeds of six people. Well, Tim, we already know that this isn't so, and those who said it was already knew the truth. Bush continues to tell Americans, "Because we acted, the torture rooms are closed." It's one of the lines he has memorized from his stump speech, but it apparently has not dawned on him that it's yet another lie, and that we all now know that it is.

I know that you are not a Bush supporter, Tim, but there are times when you seem to fall into that pseudo-patriotism trap the Bush people have set. Pointing out that Saddam has tortured and murdered more people than we have in Iraq does not in any way lessen our crimes.

[crawjo]

Chris,

We have not brought Iraq democracy. We are in the process of trying to bring them democracy. That can only happen in a stable environment. In a democracy, you need to have elections. You can't have elections if there is no stability, if "insurgents" or whatever you want to call them threaten to kill people who try to go to the polls.

Principally, what are the goals of the Mehdi Army? Certainly not democracy, and that is why the U.S. has to defeat them. A Shi'ite cleric who murders a rival cleric and then makes a bid for power by taking control of a city, Sadr must be defeated if there is ever to be a democratic Iraq. And as has happened countless times throughout U.S. history, un-democratic measures have been necessary to preserve democratic ideals. Lincoln shutting down the Maryland legislature was clearly undemocratic. But that didn't make it wrong, and that didn't undermine the cause for which he was fighting.

This has nothing to do with the inexcusable acts committed at the prison, but it was a point I wanted to make based on what you had written.

Crawjo, don't you see that by pretending to be in the process of bringing "democracy" to the Iraqi people and exhibiting contrary behavior, we have no credibility. Without the trust of the Iraqi people Bush cannot succeed in whatever it is he wants to do. How can we win their hearts and minds when we act like that? Bush has succeeded in generating hate for America throughout the world and I read somewhere that the Arab world is at a point where we are as despised as Israel. Bush is a pox on us.

[crawjo]

Well, it's a fine line you have to walk: stabilizing the country while also "promoting democracy." As I noted above, sometimes you HAVE to do contradictory things to create democracy, because in order to have a democracy you first have to have order.

But to answer your larger, more important, question, I absolutely see that the Abu Ghraib nightmare (along with whatever other abuses have been occurring) is severely damaging our credibility. In other words, closing down a newspaper might be justifiable under the present circumstances; stacking naked bodies in a pyramid is not. I thought John McCain made this point very well yesterday, and he was speaking from personal experience: Not only is torture immoral, it's also not effective. It doesn't work. Torture somebody, and they'll just tell you whatever you want to hear, even if it isn't the truth.

Who is to blame for these atrocities? I don't know. Somewhere in the chain of command somebody is to blame. It may be Rumsfeld. I don't think Bush is personally to blame for this, but I do agree with you that his response has been inadequate, and that, more importantly, he no longer seems to have a handle on what we're doing, what we should be doing, and how to implement the changes to make what we should be doing a reality. In other words, Bush now, appears to me, to be disoriented and confused. So much is flying at him right now and he's not handling it well. And that's very bad, because we are reaching a critical stage.

Which is why...fuck, if John Kerry can just get his head out of his ass and run a campaign, he can win. Put a new face on American diplomacy, put forth a plan to redress the wrongs we have committed in these prisons, and make a sincere commitment to bringing democracy to Iraq. If two, three, five years from now, Iraq is a democratic and autonomous country, then good will have come from this war. If not, then all this bloodshed will have been for nothing, and America's reputation in the world will be worse than it is now. I think it is absolutely imperative that we get this right, and from what I've seen, I don't think Bush knows how to get it right. Which is why Kerry has to step up to the plate, or the Democrats have to find somebody who can step up to the plate. I think that, with the present situation the way it is, this issue has become much bigger than politics. Democrat, Republican, it doesn't matter. We have to get this right.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Chris A

First of all, Tim, I posted the piece, I didn't write it.

Now, having said that, let me point out to you (and this has already been mentioned by me) that while Saddam's atrocities were greater in volume and performed over a greater length of time, he never claimed to be an angel. One expected this sort of thing from him, not from us. Why? Because we make it a point to tell the world how wonderful we are (that, of course, is not entirely as advertised). Bush, having brought us into this mess by lying about WMDs had to come up with another excuse when the WMD deceit was exposed. So, he decided that we were in Iraq to "liberate" its people and bring them "democracy." Well, Tim, it turned out to be an odd version of democracy, which the Iraqis found out when the Bush people closed down two newspapers, because they didn't like what they printed. There were other indications that this was an unusual form of "democracy," but when our own military continued Saddam's torture tradition at Abu Ghraib prison, there was no longer doubt: the good guys, the "liberators," the people who had descended upon Iraq from a self-proclaimed moral high ground were as brutal as anything Saddam had come up with.

Of course, there was one difference that stood out: the hypocrisy.

No, Tim, we have not seen U.S. dug mass graves, but we have seen more than enough. According to Rumsfeld, there's more to come, and new reports indicate that our people--glorified though they may be--are also capable of killing their victims.

I know that this is not something most of us face easily, but we have to stop deluding ourselves. We have to think back to remind ourselves that we have a long history of brutality and senseless killing. We also have a long history of saying to ourselves that the lynchings, the name-calling, the racism and bigotry belong to the few. Notice how quickly these stiff-necked generals, Pentagon civilians, and Republicans began to emphasize that the photos represent the misdeeds of six people. Well, Tim, we already know that this isn't so, and those who said it was already knew the truth. Bush continues to tell Americans, "Because we acted, the torture rooms are closed." It's one of the lines he has memorized from his stump speech, but it apparently has not dawned on him that it's yet another lie, and that we all now know that it is.

I know that you are not a Bush supporter, Tim, but there are times when you seem to fall into that pseudo-patriotism trap the Bush people have set. Pointing out that Saddam has tortured and murdered more people than we have in Iraq does not in any way lessen our crimes.

I am an American, and proud of it...this is true.

However, I think you do me wrong by painting me as this gullible dupe ready to blindly condone US military abuses.

My point was and is that your posting of this sort of self-serving tripe only makes our case against the radical right that much more difficult to convince the voters that they should not support them.


Much of what the author wrote is so biased and so utterly fantastic in nature that nobody is going to take it as anything more than the stereotypical Leftist harangue. To even suggest that somebody's alleged best friend was forced to look at his buddy's penis is sheer fantasy at the very least.


It serves no useful purpose other than to incite and to inflame.


I want Bush gone.



How about you?

[Uli]

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

To even suggest that somebody's alleged best friend was forced to look at his buddy's penis is sheer fantasy at the very least.

Hey now! This actually was sed by the victim himself in an interview.

[Ron Thorne]

Originally Posted by crawjo

I think that, with the present situation the way it is, this issue has become much bigger than politics. Democrat, Republican, it doesn't matter. We have to get this right.

Hello!

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

...Much of what the author wrote is so biased and so utterly fantastic in nature that nobody is going to take it as anything more than the stereotypical Leftist harangue. To even suggest that somebody's alleged best friend was forced to look at his buddy's penis is sheer fantasy at the very least.

Tim. you obviously have not been following this closely. Uli is right, people involved have made statements to back up what this article says. Then, too, there are photos of Iraqi victims made to strip and expose their private parts to the eyes of other victims. This, as I understand it, is regarded as shameful and humiliating in the Muslim world--not so here, at least to that extent.

So, this is not "sheer fantasy" in any respect. It is, however, sheer mistreatment of prisoners, and to carry it out, our very own, allegedly exemplary people have descended into the gutter from Bush's imaginary moral high ground.

We hear a lot from lockstep Republicans and other pseudo-patriots about criticism of Bush being anti-American, but when it comes to further endangering the people Bush has sent into harm's way, no protest against his regime and its Gestapo-like mentality comes close to being as detrimental to our soldiers as what these U.S. torturers have done.

[shrugs]

And of course the incidents that have been in the papers and news are the only ones we know about. I bet this put an ALL STOP to other incidents that we will never know about.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by shrugs

And of course the incidents that have been in the papers and news are the only ones we know about. I bet this put an ALL STOP to other incidents that we will never know about.

What I don't understand is, why? Why did these people, along with whoever told them to do this, resort to torture? Was it sheer sadism? Did they think they would get good information through this sort of abuse? You treat a man this way, and he's going to help you by providing good information? I don't see it. This is absolutely sickening, but I'm trying to understand the rationale behind it. Does torture "work"? I know that there are some psychological weapons you can use to disorient the person you are interrogating and eventually break them down, but forcing a man to masturbate, does this work? Did they learn these particular "tools" somewhere or is this just something they dreamed up on their own? I mean, I understand that these guards were told to "soften up" their targets. Well, that can mean a lot of things. There are methods you can employ to "soften up" a target without violating the Geneva convention. I just don't get it.

[jeff54]

I have a problem with the basic premise of the article which is that racism was the reason for the humiliation. Fisk makes this loaded charge but then provides no facts to back it up. Is any any confrontation between people of two different races automatically racist? I also find it interesting that all of the sudden in an attempt a parity Fisk is leveling the racist charge at OBL. Where was this charge from Fisk after 9/11 when his articles on the subject only blamed the west for 9/11. Were there any charges from Fisk then that said the reason for 9/11 was OSB's racism????? What a hypocrite this man is.

[Brian Olewnick]

I bet it comes down to no more than why kids pull the wings off of flies. Just substitute grown people who have absolutely no moral compass, who view "different" people as not much more than insects and put them in a stressful situation where they have free rein to act out their sadistic whims of the moment. It might be as simple and depressing as that.

Originally Posted by crawjo

What I don't understand is, why? Why did these people, along with whoever told them to do this, resort to torture? Was it sheer sadism? Did they think they would get good information through this sort of abuse? You treat a man this way, and he's going to help you by providing good information? I don't see it. This is absolutely sickening, but I'm trying to understand the rationale behind it...

I think the climate generated by the Bush regime has a lot to do with the fact that these soldiers seem to regard this as acceptable behavior. The leaders set the tone. There has always been an air of superiority in the military, I think. I never heard any real outrage when GIs called non-Americans "gooks," "towel heads," "fish heads," etc. Just look at some of the posts by certain JR members--they reflect a climate of bias and hate. Fortunately, these people are in the minority here.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by Chris A

I think the climate generated by the Bush regime has a lot to do with the fact that these soldiers seem to regard this as acceptable behavior. The leaders set the tone. There has always been an air of superiority in the military, I think. I never heard any real outrage when GIs called non-Americans "gooks," "towel heads," "fish heads," etc. Just look at some of the posts by certain JR members--they reflect a climate of bias and hate. Fortunately, these people are in the minority here.

I think it was some astute poster here who said that in order to train someone to kill strangers, you have to dehumanize who they are killing. It's not just a race thing, either, though I do think that racism plays a subconscious role--even when it is unstated. I mean, Germans were "Krauts" and so forth.

Is this true for other cultures, I wonder? Do the members of the Mehdi Army have some dehumanizing name for American soldiers, or would that just be "infidels"? What about Native American tribes? Did their warriors similarly dehumanize their enemies, be they the white man or members of a rival tribe? Or is this particular kind of dehumanization peculiar to Western culture? I don't know. I'm just wondering out loud (again). The psychology of war is a disturbing yet fascinating topic, one that I don't really know anything about. Somebody must have written a good book on this topic. Anybody know of one?

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Chris A

Tim. you obviously have not been following this closely. Uli is right, people involved have made statements to back up what this article says. Then, too, there are photos of Iraqi victims made to strip and expose their private parts to the eyes of other victims. This, as I understand it, is regarded as shameful and humiliating in the Muslim world--not so here, at least to that extent.

So, this is not "sheer fantasy" in any respect. It is, however, sheer mistreatment of prisoners, and to carry it out, our very own, allegedly exemplary people have descended into the gutter from Bush's imaginary moral high ground.

We hear a lot from lockstep Republicans and other pseudo-patriots about criticism of Bush being anti-American, but when it comes to further endangering the people Bush has sent into harm's way, no protest against his regime and its Gestapo-like mentality comes close to being as detrimental to our soldiers as what these U.S. torturers have done.

OK, then...are you gullible enough to blindly accept on faith that what this man said in the interview was true and completely above reproach???

Why is it you are so ready to believe any two-bit with an ax to grind against America, without question, yet you say that I'm trapped by Bush's pseudo-patriotism? I think the argument could be made that you are trapped by wholesale, blanket anti-American condemnations.

I suppose Iraqi's never lie, right?


Especially captured enemy soldiers...c'mon, Chris.

[Gentle Giant]

Regardless of who's more immoral than whom, this torture was outsourced by the US Army, which means that my tax dollars paid for it. And that pisses me off. And I would love to be able to tell the Iraqi people that I am deeply ashamed of my country right now.

[patricia]

It destressed me to read someone excuse the behaviour depicted in the photographs, and in anecdotal information by saying that the Iraqis have never apologized for the 3,000 people killed on Sept 11, 2001.

Wait a minute.

Is that kind of thinking not a manifestation of a non-existant link between Iraq and Osama bin Laden that the Bush Administration has not bothered to dispel, indeed, has perpetuated??

Are there thinking people who believe that this kind of behaviour is justifiable as revenge for Sept 11, 2001??

Shouldn't someone in the administration clear that up, once and for all and admit that Iraq was in their crosshairs long before Sept 11, 2001? Shouldn't they admit that the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon merely gave them an opening to carry out a pre-existing plan to attack Iraq?

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

OK, then...are you gullible enough to blindly accept on faith that what this man said in the interview was true and completely above reproach???

Tim, the photos bear out what he said.

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

Why is it you are so ready to believe any two-bit with an ax to grind against America, without question, yet you say that I'm trapped by Bush's pseudo-patriotism? I think the argument could be made that you are trapped by wholesale, blanket anti-American condemnations.

Don't you think you are being just a little unfair/biased when you refer to this man--about whom you know diddly--as a "two-bit with an ax to grind against America," Tim? As it is, I have more evidence upon which to base my belief in the veracity of his account than you do to so arbitrarily dismiss it.

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

I suppose Iraqi's never lie, right? Especially captured enemy soldiers...c'mon, Chris.

It has been reported that not all the Iraqi prisoners are soldiers, some were simply rounded up because they were there, and none of them has stood trial for anything. I would say that you seem to have lost sight of the justice system as we (America) advertise it to be, and that you have adopted the narrower non-Geneva Convention approach of Rumsfeld, et al.

I'll put my brand of patriotism up against that kind, any time.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by patricia

It destressed me to read someone excuse the behaviour depicted in the photographs, and in anecdotal information by saying that the Iraqis have never apologized for the 3,000 people killed on Sept 11, 2001.

Wait a minute.

Is that kind of thinking not a manifestation of a non-existant link between Iraq and Osama bin Laden that the Bush Administration has not bothered to dispel, indeed, has perpetuated??

Are there thinking people who believe that this kind of behaviour is justifiable as revenge for Sept 11, 2001??

Shouldn't someone in the administration clear that up, once and for all and admit that Iraq was in their crosshairs long before Sept 11, 2001? Shouldn't they admit that the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon merely gave them an opening to carry out a pre-existing plan to attack Iraq?

Patricia, that sounds like a straw man argument. Who said it?

Why would the administration deny that plans existed to invade Iraq before 9/11? Plans to invade Iraq had been circulating in the government for years before 9/11, throughout the Clinton administration.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by crawjo

Patricia, that sounds like a straw man argument. Who said it?

Why would the administration deny that plans existed to invade Iraq before 9/11? Plans to invade Iraq had been circulating in the government for years before 9/11, throughout the Clinton administration.

I heard Wolf Blitzer read that statement in one of the e-mails from viewers he reads at the end of his Sunday morning "Late Report" broadcast. Blitzer simply read the e-mail and went on to the next e-mail, with no comment.


Also, Chris A.'s point is well-taken about many of the detainees not being enemy combatants, but simply Iraqis in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by patricia

I heard Wolf Blitzer read that statement in one of the e-mails from viewers he reads at the end of his Sunday morning "Late Report" broadcast. Blitzer simply read the e-mail and went on to the next e-mail, with no comment.

Yeah, okay, so somebody who wrote into CNN is an idiot. Blitzer probably didn't respond because how could you respond to something that callous and stupid?

[GoodSpeak]

Tim, the photos bear out what he said.

No they don't.

Show me how those pictures depict a best friend looking at his buddy's penis. Can you?

Don't you think you are being just a little unfair/biased when you refer to this man--about whom you know diddly--as a "two-bit with an ax to grind against America," Tim? As it is, I have more evidence upon which to base my belief in the veracity of his account than you do to so arbitrarily dismiss it.

Chris, I said ANY two-bit not this man in specific.

Come on, already.

It has been reported that not all the Iraqi prisoners are soldiers, some were simply rounded up because they were there, and none of them has stood trial for anything. I would say that you seem to have lost sight of the justice system as we (America) advertise it to be, and that you have adopted the narrower non-Geneva Convention approach of Rumsfeld, et al.

I'll put my brand of patriotism up against that kind, any time.

I've not lost sight of any justice system. That is not what the article is about and you know it. It refers to racism and our penchant to overlook the worst in ourselves in favor of justifying the worst in others.

I'll put my brand of patriotism up against that kind, any time.

Go for it, Chris.

At least I can see the difference between patriotism and unabashedly negative bias.....so save the preach, OK?

Tim, I guess any further discussion of this with you would be fruitless, so--with that assumption--I'll leave you to your conjectures.

[jesus marion joseph]

This is one of the best threads in a long time. I've been preoccupied with houseguests, building a new house and other crap, so I've been neglecting my Alley "family". Sorry about that, but you always hurt the one you love, right?

Anyway, I disagree that the acts that have come to light recently are endemic of institutionalised racism per se, but I'm still grappling with the idea that anyone would think a) it's OK to engage in this type of behavior and b) that they would allow themselves to be photographed in the act. Truly mind-boggling.

I agree somewhat with GG in feeling of shame, except that it's not my country I'm ashamed of, it's the idiots who engaged in this behavior that are pissing me off.

Kudos to Sid Hersh (sp?), BTW, for breaking the story and providing thoughtful commentary on the talking head shows.

Later,

jmj

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

it's not my country I'm ashamed of, it's the idiots who engaged in this behavior that are pissing me off.

Exactly.