Year: 2005

“Command is a sacred trust. The legal and moral responsibilities of commanders exceed those of any other leader of similar position or authority. Nowhere else does a boss have to answer for how subordinates live and what they do after work.” – Dep’t of the Army, Field Manual 22-100, sec. 1-61.

“An Army inspector general’s report has cleared senior Army officers of wrongdoing in the abuse of military prisoners in Iraq and elsewhere, government officials familiar with the findings said yesterday.” – Washington Post, Saturday.

It’s still unclear what impact the war on terror is having in the Middle East, with some positive signs and still worrying possibilities in Iraq and elsewhere. But the impact on America – and on the U.S. military – is already clear. The United States has become a country that practices and condones torture and abuse of war detainees – even in a conventional conflict, such as Iraq. The legal memos allowing this are clear; the responsibility is clear – from president Bush down. And the consequences are clear: hundreds and hundreds of cases that prove systematic, approved torture and abuse of prisoners in every field of conflict, in camps and bases across Afghanistan and Iraq. The latest news about Camp Mercury is sickening, horrifying, but, at this point, utterly predictable. And when you read the Human Rights Watch report, and hear what the courageous and heroic soldiers say about what they witnessed, the conclusion is unavoidable. Scott Horton takes up Marty Lederman’s baton and explains more here. Money quote:

Soldiers state they fully appreciated that the abuse to which the detainees were subjected was sanctioned up the chain of command. A decision apparently had been made not to apply the Geneva Conventions in the War on Terror, and unambiguous instructions had come down the line of command to “take the gloves off” with the detainees. But one officer saw Donald Rumsfeld testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2004 saying that the Geneva Conventions were being respected in Iraq. “Something was wrong,” he said. The officer went up the chain of command and to the JAGs in theater trying to get clarification of how the Geneva Conventions could possibly permit what was happening. He got nowhere. Moreover, he found he was subjected to implied and direct threats. Asking questions or reporting on what he saw would affect “the honor of the unit” and would damage his career.
The officer attempted to report these matters to several Republican senators. When his intention to do this became clear, officers in his chain of command denied him leave and took other steps to block his actions.

I think it’s pretty clear that the military knows they have a lot to hide and that Rumsfeld knew he was lying when he assured Senators that the war in Iraq was being conducted in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. The cover-up of abuse that was the norm went all the way up the military command to Rumsfeld himself. Someone had told these officers that torture was now okay. That someone told the Senate another version.

THE END OF ACCOUNTABILITY: The Bush administration – especially vice-president Dick Cheney and Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld – have fiercely resisted releasing critical documents that could nail this down without any doubt. They threatened to veto any bill that would bar the CIA from inflicting torture, and they oppose any Congressional attempts to insist that the U.S. military be legally forbidden from “cruel, inhumane or degrading” treatment of detainees. We need to see the rest of the Abu Ghraib photos that have been withheld, but we also need some critical documents, in order to categorically disprove propaganda like that recently published by National Review. Horton again:

Until the Yoo March 14, 2003 memo is released to congressional oversight — and to the public — it is impossible for any serious analyst to accept the Harvey and Schoomaker claims about the role of doctrine. To the contrary, the unjustified withholding of this document — along with the military’s own Church Report, and the numerous primary documents collected during that investigation — invites a strong inference that their claims are false. Moreover, at this point the text of the March 14, 2003 memo in and of itself is not enough. We need to see exactly how it affected military doctrine in the form of advice given by the DOD General Counsel’s office, the JAG Corps, and the Military Intelligence branch, among other things. Some e-mail traffic I have seen among MI officers in Iraq suggests that this memo shaped actions on the ground in the War on Terror within a matter of weeks, if not days.

Horton reminds us of an important fact. In the military, responsibility goes up the chain of command. Punishing the grunts, while excusing those who devised these policies is not only unjust, it violates basic principles of military accountability. Read this analysis from someone who actually cares about the military’s reputation. The president has already repeatedly declared his own view of his own responsibility for what goes on in his administration: others are always to blame. Only with Katrina did he manage to spit out his own responsibility. But destroying centuries of honor in the U.S. armed services is a graver crime than slovenly hurricane response.

The always informative Peter Steinfels looks beyond the gay issue in the new series of seminary visitations in the Catholic church. Examining the questions asked, he notices something striking:

There are no explicit questions about the seminarians’ capacities for initiative, creativity or imaginative and consultative leadership, although some of these qualities are undoubtedly taken up in the various church documents found in the footnotes.
There is no explicit question about concern for social justice, unless that could be assumed under a single reference to “apostolic zeal.” By comparison, there are numerous questions specifically asking about recitation of the rosary, visits to the Blessed Sacrament, devotion to Mary and the saints and many other “exercises of piety.”
A single question asks whether seminarians are being taught “a proper understanding of the role of women in ecclesial life” and “the proper models of clergy-lay cooperation.” The next question makes clear that what is “proper” is to be found in statements by Pope John Paul II and his Vatican officials. Of the 96 questions, just these two address the intellectual potential of future priests.

If you want to know why most lay Catholics find their priests’ homilies to be, at best, embarrassingly dumb and facile, look no further. The most recent survey found that only 10 percent of priests were educationally “highly qualified” to teach effectively. Moreover, many of John Paul II’s new generation of orthodox priests don’t want to study: “regardless of native abilities and educational experiences” they resist “the learning enterprise” because it threatens their “preconceived ideas about theology.” The Jesuits still do great work, of course, and so do other orders. But there’s no question that the last and current papacy regard inquisitive minds and fearless intellects to be threats rather than assets. They want automatons to obey their bosses, not priests capable of leading or inspiring a diverse, modern flock. Of course, many of the most gifted and intellectually alert priests are gay: they truly chose their vocation despite the obvious conflicts and know their theology. But they are now to be purged. I wish I had better news; but it seems to me that what is happening is a defensive crouch that will shrink the Western church even further. More important: that is the point.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “I visited the Vatican in early August and met a person who is deeply ’embedded’ in the world of those who run Vatican City and who govern the global machinery of the Catholic Church. According to this person’s estimation, he guesses that a “conservative estimate” of those cardinals and senior church officials who are gay is about 50 percent. Practicing, as opposed to just flirtatious, homosexuals at the highest levels of the church are probably about 30 percent. When I asked whether homosexuals would be better served under Pope Benedict XVI than under John Paul II, he responded, ‘Don’t think that we will be any better served under a gay pope than a straight one.'” – Steve Clemons, Washington Note.

The Louisiana Congressional delegation get their snouts in the federal trough.

I was lucky enough to have coffee yesterday with Kyle Maynard. He’s a nineteen year-old congenital amputee with more energy, focus and dignity than most able-bodied people. His book is out this week, aptly titled “No Excuses.” Yep: the guy can bench press 360 pounds, with arms that end at elbow stumps and legs that end where most people have knees. He’s a wrestling champion and the first person I thought of when I met him was Don Rumsfeld. Boy, those two would get along. From the minute I tried to move a couch out of his way, and he simply clambered effortlessly over it, I saw something quite stirring. He answers his cell phone more quickly than I can; he writes with ease and fluency; his eager eyes pierce right through you. Kyle may perhaps represent the best of what might be called the disability movement. He has that South Park mentality that doesn’t try and hide disability or difference, but places it right in front of you. And then – through that fact, not around it – you begin to see the larger dimension of the person. It’s called integration – not avoidance, denial or embarrassment. Of course, I see the parallels with gay people – how the future is being made by people whose gayness is right there on the table, but eventually becomes integrated into an understanding of the full dimensions of someone’s personality and character. Ditto for those with HIV. Kyle believes that his disability shouldn’t prevent him from doing anything he wants to do or anyone he wants to be. But first you have to embrace the disability as a part of who you are – without fear or deflection. Reading his poignant, personal book is a joy. Buy it and try and get to see “Murderball” as well: the astonishing documentary on quadriplegic wheelchair rugby tournaments. I think we have a new moment in disability culture; and it’s a truly inspiring and progressive one.

The marriage has officially broken up.

HOW CAN YOU TELL …: … when a political ideology has become the equivalent of a religion? When it attempts to indoctrinate 4 – 8 year olds. Check out some of the illustrations here. (Update: the illustrations on that site are fakes and parodies. I apologize. I was conned. The book, however, is utterly real and sincere. It is not a parody and it is not aimed exclusively to adults. For more: see here.)

EXCUSE ME? From the NYT today:

Though “The Color Purple” tells a story of redemptive love and the triumph of the human spirit, it does so through some unsettling elements, including family violence, incest, racial discrimination and lesbianism.

Nice to see how some people view homosexuality. Just as unsettling as incest and racism. In the New York Times.

“In music the passions enjoy themselves.” – Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Section 106.

Thanks to several readers. The Daily Dish: conservatism for Nietzsche readers.

“In Jazz the unconscious describes itself almost in its own terms,” – Philip Larkin. I stumbled across that quote today. Has anyone come up with a better one-line description of an art-form?

A far more credible person with some serious questions about the death of her son in combat. Her name? Mary Tillman. Did you know that one of Pat Tillman’s favorite authors was Noam Chomsky and that he opposed the Iraq war? I didn’t. It makes his patriotism and service more admirable, in my view. And the obvious lies and obfuscation and contradictions from the military all the more reprehensible. Of course, the Tillman family have only one real powerful ally in D.C.: John McCain. With every day, we
realize just how big a loss it was when George Bush smeared his way to primary victory in South Carolina five years ago.

From several sources, it seems a fair estimate that tens of thousands of anti-war protestors were in Washington this weekend. The D.C. police chief estimated a probable 100,000 in all. Reports of as few as 2,000 may have been from one of the minor rallies, and I misread them. I still don’t see why the NYT could not make a reasonable guess. The AP managed it, in what was, to my mind, still a somewhat breathless puff piece on the event. Anyway, apologies on the numbers.