Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma today raises a different point of view on the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
Speaking of those appearing in the recent spate of photos showing abuse of prisoners by U.S. guards, Inhofe says: "...they're murderers, they're terrorists, they're insurgents. Many of them probably have American blood on their hands. And here we're so concerned about the treatment of those individuals."
It would be nice to know what evidence Inhofe has to support this viewpoint. The only so-far identified object of abuse, according to a story in the May 5 West County Times, is one Hayder Sabbar Abd, who apparently was neither a murderer, a terrorist, nor an insurgent, but -- like 70 to 90% of the other inhabitants of Abu Ghraib, according to an International Red Cross report -- was arrested for no good reason. In Hayder's case, it would appear that the vile crime for which he was arrested and held at Abu Ghraib for about three quarters of a year was being in a car whose driver couldn't produce proper papers at a checkpoint. In the U.S., under those conditions, the driver would be given a fix-it ticket; the police would pay no attention to the passenger. In U.S.-occupied Iraq, it would appear that even the passenger is subject to detention without charge, for a significant part of a human life span, and -- in at least some cases -- torture. (Hayder's punishment included not only sexual humiliation but also a broken jaw.)
His compensation for this treatment is to be referred to by a United States senator as a "murderer, terrorist, insurgent" who probably has American blood on his hands. Well, likely he quite literally had blood on his hands -- his own.
Inhofe's comments -- which, hopefully, the people of Oklahoma will take into consideration if he ever again has the chutzpah to run for re-election -- were, luckily, disavowed by other senators, including some members of his own party -- for example, Senator McCain of Arizona, the only member of that august chamber who has been on the receiving end of abuse of prisoners by military guards. (Though, as McCain recently commented, while the North Vietnamese tortured him, they never subjected him to humiliation. Apparently they were half-civilized, unlike some others ...)
Unfortunately, Inhofe's point of view and its numerous derivatives are quite common: yesterday I heard on the french national radio (yes I am french as clearly shown by my convoluted english) a reporter in Bagdad commenting that the problem was not the torture and humilations by themselves but rather the fact that they could not be easily linked with the prevention of a new terrorist act... if only one of those guys could have been a convicted terrorist, it would have justified the whole affair! There was not a shred of surprise or will of contradiction from the numerous other experts invited to comment on the desastrous situation in Iraq.
By the way, what is 'chutzpah'?
Best wishes,
Lionel Vidal
I supported the war and to a large extent still do. However I was absolutely disgusted at the abuse of the Iraqi prisoners and politicians like Inhofe aren't exactly endearing me to the Republican Party or continued support of the war.
Posted by: John Mayson at May 12, 2004 06:47 PM