|
that separation between torture and the run of the mill operations of us forces was the result of policy directives that originated with rumsfeld. it is self-evident that not all aspects of us forces were in the same physical proximity to these situations. so it is self-evident that not all of us forces were implicated in the same way. but the way this policy worked---it's obvious, yes? use the arbitrary definition cooked up by the bush administration to cover a "war on terror" (in quotes because it's a joke) to suspend the rules of war for us forces. but they couldn't just do that because the political damage would be too high. so they replicated the logic of renditions in iraq.
the policy itself is far more clearly criminal than are any of the actions guided by that policy. and i suspect this is the point of the policy design.
and i am not interested in playing the cheap little game of being accused of supporting saddam hussein by saying that the united states, thanks in part to this torture policy--which is documented in the release as are many instance (i can give a count to this point, but am on my way to work.) i simply find it ironic that the us "liberated" iraq so that iraqis could be subjected to the same abuse but at slightly different hands.
i'm sure that can be justified by the strategic incoherence of the operation itself in its earlier phases. but that too can be laid squarely at the feet of rumsfeld, wolfowitz, etc.
i like the iraqnophobia joke tho. i'll likely steal it. is that yours (tm)?
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|