I know this will come as a complete shock, but the U.S. is denying a report in a British newspaper alleging that photographs depicting Iraqi prisoner abuse include images of rape and sexual abuse. In fact, Barack Obama is so confident in the report's deceptiveness that he's trying to block release of the photos.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the Daily Telegraph newspaper had shown "an inability to get the facts right".
"That news organization has completely mischaracterized the images," Whitman told reporters. "None of the photos in question depict [sic] the images that are described in that article."
Hey, I'm pretty sure I know at least one good way to verify the allegations of the report: release the damned photos.
Obviously, if the Obama administration has nothing to hide, it has nothing to fear should the photos see the light of day. (Our benevolent defenders ought to be familiar with that line, eh?) After all, the photos are from 2004, well before Obama became commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
No matter. We all know Our Holy Savior is so dedicated to "change" that he'll just toe the Bush line on torture and "state secrets." No harm, no foul. Better yet, no reason to have to explain this, especially considering he just gave that Memorial Day speech touting America's "moral authority":
The newspaper said at least one picture showed an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner while another is said to show a male translator raping a male detainee.
Others were said to depict sexual assaults with objects including a truncheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube.
Ah, the ol' phosphorescent tube trick. Brings back memories. So much for all that "transparency" Obama's been promising though, huh?
Actually, I expect the president to be a pompous slimeball, slinking around and covering his ass after breaking all his empty promises. But considering the praise the vast majority of Americans shower on the U.S. military, you'd think more officers wouldn't be such transparent hacks. Say, like retired U.S. Army Major General Antonio Taguba, who conducted the 2004 investigation into the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison and concluded that the pictures in question revealed "torture, abuse, rape and every indecency."
So far, so good. But then Taguba goes on to illustrate how the state's goons ultimately stick together by explaining why he actually supports Obama's cover-up:
"I am not sure what purpose their release would serve other than a legal one," he said. "The sequence would be to imperil our troops, the only protectors of our foreign policy, when we most need them, and British troops who are trying to build security in Afghanistan."
Yes, thank goodness the American people are denied the ability to hold their rulers LEGALLY ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR WAR CRIMES.
At least craven sociopath Taguba got one thing right: the release of these obviously damning photos would necessarily imperil our troops. Indeed, just today Will Grigg recalls the testimony of U.S. Army Major Matthew Alexander, a military interrogator who "asserts that torture and other abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, not Islamic ideology, served as the main recruiting theme for foreign Jihadists who gathered in Iraq." Grigg continues (and I set this apart to drive the point home):
By his reckoning, torture contributed directly to the death of more Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan than occurred on September 11, 2001.
For all the despicable actions of the Jihadists who videotape their murderous, sadistic exploits, at least it can be said that they are capable of admitting to their brutality. At least they spare us the self-righteousness that we're so accustomed to hearing from American politicians and torture apologists, who claim they're setting the moral course for humanity as they torture innocent prisoners and then disguise their cowardice in admitting to their behavior as concern for "the troops'" well-being.
Comments