18 Responses to ““Rape Rooms””

1. #1 |  John T. Kennedy |  May 8th, 2004 at 1:44 pm

   An effective piece.

2. #2 |  Jeb |  May 8th, 2004 at 2:56 pm

   Interesting, though I think somewhat disingenuous to compare the wrongdoing of some of our soldiers against enemy combatants (not that it excuses it) with the systematic, top-down type of crimes committed under Saddam.

   Not that either one is acceptable, I’m just saying I don’t grant the moral equivalence.

3. #3 |  Grant Gould |  May 8th, 2004 at 3:41 pm

   Moral equivalence, or lack thereof, doesn’t matter a damn. It’s functional equivalence that matters, and we’ve got that in spades. You want to terrify a people? You want to turn them against you? You want them longing for a chance, the minute the regime’s guns are turned away, to start knocking down statues? We seem to have learned how to get people to do that.

   Fuck moral equivalence. Dodging moral equivalence and fifty cents will buy you a phone call. What matters is what it does, and what it does is damn well equivalent: It tyrranizes, it terrorizes, it dehumanizes. It’s just another fascist dictatorship in Iraq, however you slice it. The action implies the intent; we needn’t quibble about _morals_ when we are in the face of _evil_.

   It doesn’t matter who’s morally equivalent to whom. It’s not about morals. It’s about reality, about what you _are_. And what America is, at this moment, is a two-bit tyrant ruling a broken and terrorized nation from Baghdad. It no longer matters who is morally equivalent; it never has and never did and never will. It matters who can represent human decency, and the answer sure as hell doesn’t seem to be America.

   I am never more ashamed of this country than when I hear someone pull out “moral equivalence” as if it were an argument. It’s a pandering excuse from either side for contemptible behaviour and craven unwillingness to face reality. Is our torture “morally equivalent” to theirs? Who gives a fuck? It has one crucial difference — it’s ours! — and one crucial equivalence — it’s torture! — and if those aren’t enough to shut a person up about “moral equivalence”, that person should run for congress. Or perhaps join the Army — it appears that they have places for people who can justify anything with sophistry and casuistry.

   Each and every person who brings “moral equivalence” into an argument about basic human decency is on a morally equivalent plane, whether you’re defending the “he started it first” grade-schooler or defending the bomber walking into a bar full of civilians. If you think that there are moral equivalents, that there are shades and degrees of rape and torture and murder to be toted up on some ledger of moral accountancy, summed to a bottom line and compared with other virtue scorecards, you have already left virtue far, far behind.
   –G

4. #4 |  Bernard |  May 8th, 2004 at 4:17 pm

   Paraphrasing: ‘whichever way you cut it, this regime is as bad as Saddam’s'?

   Grant, forgive me if I’m misunderstanding, but you seem to be engaging in moral equivalence.

   Given the tone of your post, that is no small irony.

5. #5 |  Jeb |  May 8th, 2004 at 5:05 pm

   “It’s just another fascist dictatorship in Iraq, however you slice it.”
   No, it’s not. The are three very key differences to note: 1) these actions were against combatants, whereas the old regime terroriszed all equally (a minor point, I grant, but worth note) (2) our soldiers were acting on orders (or suggestions) that do not appear to go very high, as opposed to the actions of Uday and Qusay et als. (3) the Army is cleaning house of these people, and they will all face justice for their actions. It took a whole-scale invasion to bring justice down upon Saddam Hussein.

   I think it’s childish of you to equate the actions of a few with the standing of our entire country. Such a standard absolves the individual of personal responsibility. Our country is doing its duty with regards to these soldiers. They will be prosecuted.

   That said, what is your point? Is every crime/sin/injustice equal? Sorry, I don’t buy it. Do you think that every little thing we do wrong makes us as bad as Saddam’s regime? Sorry, I can’t buy that either. America sucks and you hate it lots? I don’t buy it, but if you do, you should look for a job with Nader’s campaign.

   Did I miss your point?

6. #6 |  dragoon |  May 8th, 2004 at 6:26 pm

   1) No, it wasn’t just combatants who were tortured. It was people suspected of being combatants and their family members. Salon had a piece about an Al-Jazeera journalist who was held and knocked around because he showed up at a a place where there had been an attack 4 hours beforehand. Radio talkshow hosts in my area were talking about people being grabbed for not having ID papers while driving. Don’t fool yourself – there were innocents caught up in this as well as the guilty.

   2) The responsibility for this goes all the way up to Rumsfeld, who felt that the previous regulations on interrogations were too restrictive and burdensome. Maybe, but they were there for a reason, and when he failed to set up a system for preventing this, he became responsible. He threw out the Geneva Conventions back in 2002, and now it’s bit him.

   3) Yes, the torturers will be punished. I’m not as optimistic that those who let them loose will similarly face consequences.

7. #7 |  Richard |  May 8th, 2004 at 6:38 pm

   I think the Bushies just like saying “rape rooms”.

   :)

8. #8 |  digamma.net - notes |  May 8th, 2004 at 8:17 pm

   Not Funny Anymore

   When I clicked on William Saletan’s chronology of the term “rape rooms”, I was expecting to enjoy some quality snark at the Bush administration’s expense. But by the end, I was nearly in tears. This stuff isn’t funny anymore. It’s…

9. #9 |  Jeb |  May 8th, 2004 at 8:22 pm

   1) I wasn’t aware of that story. Still, the damage to civilians has certainly been far less than under Saddam, not that it’s excusable or acceptable.

   2) I’m not intimately familiar with the previous restrictions, or the new guidelines, but I would hazard a guess that the old guidelines were too restrictive. “Failed to set up a system to prevent this” How does one set up a system to prevent all crimes, especially in a war zone? And what’s your evidence for the claim that he “threw out the Geneva Conventions”?

   3) I assume you’re referring to Rumsfeld here again. If he indeed “let them loose”, and you put it, and there is evidence of such, he will certainly be fired, at the least. As far as people who we have actual reason to suspect (as opposed to people who are just unliked), I know at least one general is facing consequences.

10. #10 |  Frank N |  May 9th, 2004 at 5:31 am

    One was state sanctioned, one was not.

    You bet there is a difference.

11. #11 |  Ms. Dani |  May 10th, 2004 at 11:27 am

    Frank N, in an economy of words…

12. #12 |  Anonymous |  May 12th, 2004 at 12:35 pm

    many a people today think this country america is so pure and clean yet we are so blinded by everything the goverment is telling us that we cant see straight through there lieing teeth
    bush is an evil dictating man who thinks but doing one right thing will lead to purity and hes wrong why he is the farest thing from a holy person becasue he sits there and storms into irake saying he had to do it well i agree with that but what i do not agreee in is that he has the nerve do do things that he was against when hussan when in charge such as rape rooms you would think this suppoeds great leader that some of you call him would have more sense and more dignity than to do something like this and give us americans a bad name i belive that he should never be presidant of this country i mean look at what has happend to everything since he came on board we must take a stand now before we become just like a 3 world country no more than what he is saying hes trying to solve

13. #13 |  Willy |  May 12th, 2004 at 1:27 pm

    Anon above:

    Go back to school and learn to write a cohesive argument. At least learn to use proper sentences.

14. #14 |  roulette |  July 7th, 2005 at 11:47 pm

    Take your time to take a look at some relevant information in the field of free slots free slots http://www.favorite-casino.com/free-slots.html http://www.favorite-casino.com/free-slots.html online casinos online casinos http://www.favorite-casino.com/online-casinos.html http://www.favorite-casino.com/online-casinos.html … Thanks!!!

15. #15 |  texas holdem |  July 14th, 2005 at 8:38 pm

    Take your time to visit some relevant information in the field of texas holdem texas holdem http://www.ppp-poker.com/texas-holdem.html http://www.ppp-poker.com/texas-holdem.html …

16. #16 |  best Online Poker Cheats |  September 30th, 2005 at 4:09 am

    You are invited to visit some relevant pages about bonus – Tons of interesdting stuff!!!

17. #17 |  rake back reel deal slots and video poker |  October 8th, 2005 at 2:45 pm

    Please take a look at some helpful info dedicated to games …

---