{ An Autopsy of Democracy }

Friday, October 28, 2005

Vice President for Torture

Vice President for Torture

This has not really been headline news of late, but I want to re-visit it in spite of -- or perhaps because of -- that fact.

The depravity of this administration seems to know no depths. In virtually the same breath as they say "we don't torture people," Cheney is actively campaigning Congress for the right to do just that; and Bush even threatened to veto the defense spending bill (you know, the money that "supports our troops") because it also said we couldn't torture people any more.

A judge has ruled that the remaining photos and video tapes from Abu Ghraib must be released, which might re-open the scandal. But my question is, why isn't there an ongoing investigation right now, to this day? Didn't Bush say we were going to destroy Abu Ghraib prison? So why is it not only still standing, but fully operational?

Does anyone honestly believe that Lyndie England and Charles Graner were simply a couple of "bad apples" who acted completely on their own with no one else knowing about it? (This has always been absurd on its face; all you have to do is look at this picture to realize it was commonplace and out in the open.) Sanchez is cleared, along with all the officers and higher-ups. I guess it's easy to find no guilt when you're investigating yourself.

But we know about Gonzales's memos. We know about "Copper Green". Jani Karpinski, former head of Abu Ghraib, has said that the blame "goes all the way to the top." { Click here for audio of the interview } And we have the testimony now of Capt. Ian Fishback -- again, If there's no systemic abuse, and no cover-up ("just a few bad apples"), then why was Fishback ignored, silenced, and threatened by his superior officers?

More links here

| |

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?