Troy, I don't know who you are but I do know several people who have responded to your comments and I respect them immensely. According to the our own documents, over 93% of the detainees who were brought into the system that included the use of torture were essentially picked up for bounty money, which is why the documentation of the circumstances of their capture "on the battlefield" is so scarce...because it didn't happen. Evidence was planted, names were confused on purpose, people simply used the American greed for victims, i.e. Islamic men who were not American, to enrich themselves at the cost of someones physical or psychological health.
In addition, there is evidence that U.S. troops who were captured by insurgents or al-Qaeda in Iraq were tortured to death only after the photographs of Abu Gharaib were released by DOD. No one in the chain of command got in trouble for the abuses perpetrated by US personnel--not Rumsfeld, who openly mocked some of the complaints called "stress positions" as if this was a joke, not W, not Cheney, none of the lawyers from the Office of Legal Counsel--no one except the female commander of the reserve unit who was running the prison under the auspices and direction of the CIA, and the kids from that unit who were thrown under the bus...but only after the pictures came to light.
And one more person: Major General Antonio Tagabu. He was quickly retired once it became clear to Rumsfeld and Bush that the Tagabu Report about detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib was highly critical of the obvious clash of Military Police needs to control prisoners and the Military Intelligence needs to extract information from often reluctant sources. It was clear to him that something was amiss, especially when he revealed that the photos that Pres. Obama refused to release to the public depicted prisoners being raped by guards, or being sexually abused by their batons, or wires. One of the victims of the rapes was an Iraqi boy between the age of 15-18. MG Tagabu testified before Congress that the events of Abu Ghraib were not random, were not isolated, and were part of a larger, more sophisticated effort to abuse the detained Muslims, regardless of their age or likelihood that they had anything to do with the 9/11 preparations or knew the location of either bin Laden's or Hussein's hideout.
One more thing: During the Revolutionary War, the British routinely tortured and hanged American "insurgents" who were captured or had surrendered in good faith. When US troops started to abuse British troops after a battle, Washington stopped them and issued an order that "we would not act like them because we are here to show them that we are better than that." That established the precedent that, officially anyway, US troops were not to engage in inhumane behavior against enemy forces. Well, we can't use the high road defense any longer, can we?
We all know that in the heat of battle "things happen." However, the primary reason we did not torture enemy personnel was the simple fact that it is an inefficient and unreliable method of gathering timely, useful information, Jack Bauer and Gollum be damned. If there was evidence that showed a correlation between timely intel and the use of torture, then I have little problem using it; but, as a former intel analyst and student of war and psychology of war, torture does not work. It never has. At least, not as a way to collect intel.
It has been my perception from the beginning of the W debacle--someone who I wanted to succeed beyond our wildest dreams because he was our CinC facing a dangerous, smart, deadly foe--that the appearance of proactive engagement was superior than appearing to wait for the other shoe to drop, regardless of how many lies and laws had to be sacrificed in the process. In his mind, the American public would and should find a way to forgive him because he was doing God's work and could not be asked to do more than that. And part of the problem with that is the perception than many Christian fundamentalists have that we're approaching the End Times.
When I was a kid, they explained the Book of Revelations as pitting the US Eagle vs. the Soviet Bear fighting over Israel, which is odd since it is legally a secular state. In any event, with the loss of the Soviets, a NEW enemy emerged: ISLAM!
The eternal struggle for the Holy Land has risen again and no battle can be greater, etc. I've read transcripts and watched interviews of some of the higher ups who created the torture system. They don't talk about intel value or avoiding another 9/11 nightmare; no, they talk in terms of a Vengeful God of the Old Testament smiting enemies of Palestine, about protecting the way of life of Christians. THEY WANT TO PICK A FIGHT WITH THE 1.2 BILLION MUSLIMS OF THE WORLD, OF WHOM THE VAST MAJORITY ARE NOT RADICAL OR MURDEROUS INDISCRIMINATE KILLERS OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS! THEY WANT TO FULFILL THIS PROPHECY! That's why W has never been overly concerned with his legacy with "egghead" historians, because he'll have songs of praise rising to the Heavens in his name!
I have little "proof" other than the odd interview and transcript to go on, but listen to Mrs. Palin and what she's talking about. These people are not grounded in reality. Just like Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. They have a peculiar, particular brand of religion that entertains little sass and a lot of angelic fervor. We do indeed live in dangerous times, more dangerous than one could have ever imagined. Release the fucking zombies and get it over with already. At least with Zombies I have a fighting chance and get to take some assholes out with a baseball bat. The other alternative, aka The Rapture, leaves me sucking my thumb while all my Christian true believer friends get to float away to paradise. Right.
XOXO--Ernst
