Skip Navigation - Search the MetOnline

Metonline Logo
Powered by Google

Volume 27, Issue 10, october 14, 2004

Opinion

Is torture patriotic?

mugZoë Williams
Guest Columnist

“The people are urged to be patriotic ... by sacrificing their own children. Patriotism requires allegiance to the flag, which means obedience and readiness to kill father, mother, brother, sister.” —Emma Goldman

In December of 2003, a desperate letter from a woman known by nothing but “Noor” escaped Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq and made its way to a group of seven lawyers investigating U.S. inflicted abuse on detainees. This letter was so horrifying it was held under great skepticism. Its contents explained the gang rapes and beatings that women, a small minority in the jail, were receiving. Some of the women were pregnant from the rapes. Noor begged the Iraqi resistance to bomb the jail to spare the women further dishonor.

According to the Guardian of March, 2004, most of the women surviving detention in Iraq were not willing to speak of their tortures, as they were petrified with pain and fear. The Guardian also explained that many women did not survive their release due to honor killings fueled by the equation of rape with shame on the victim in some Islamic societies.

U.S. military lead investigator Major General Antonio Taguba confirmed the letter was accurate. He confirmed that among some 1,800 digital photos from inside Abu Ghraib illustrating tortures of detainees, there were several of soldiers “having sex” with the women (The Guardian).

It has since been nearly impossible for lawyers investigating further abuse to get inside Abu Ghraib. This story alone is a demonstration of everything that is wrong not only with the war in Iraq, but the U.S. obsession with an over-militarized society. Since 9/11, a contorted definition of just action has infected the masses. Tortures, rapes and murders of detainees in Abu Ghraib have been validated by right wing jingoists like Rush Limbaugh, attributing the cruelty to “blowing off some steam.” George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld were able to cleanse their hands after a brief apology. Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to be disillusioned with the idea that all of Iraq is out to kill them, so Iraq must die first by whatever means necessary.

Why did it take months for the torture scandal at Abu Ghraib to break? Why are these tortures being validated? Why aren’t they being named? Rumsfeld, Bush, and the corporate media label the events of Abu Ghraib as “abuses” or soldiers “having sex with” or “hurting” prisoners. This was not simple abuse, or sex, or pain. Soldiers were torturing, violently raping, suffocating, electrocuting, and bludgeoning detainees, sometimes to the point of death.

When there is a death on the Coalition side, we hear about murderers, terrorists, beheadings, brutality, and bloodbaths. There are 625 detainees sitting in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba at U.S. disposal without lawyers facing their own neglect and abuse. Why is this okay? These prisoners are being starved, overcrowded, and exposed to unsanitary conditions. Regardless of extreme weather and illnesses related to their overcrowding, the Red Cross cannot obtain access. Why is this okay?

It is surprising to me that there are not more beheadings. The U.S. lost 3,000 people on September 11, 2001, and has invaded two countries killing at least 55,048, injuring 145,391 civilians and combatants as of July, 2004 (www.iraqbodycount.net, Afghan Victim Memorial Project). The U.S. reports confirm at least 44 cases of torture in Abu Ghraib jail (a number lauded by Iraqi lawyers, also leaving out any other torture cases).

These numbers are overwhelming, and they are not in major news. U.S. citizens are expected to question these numbers and remain distant, avoiding contemplation to maintain apathy. Honestly, I am amazed at how low Coalition casualties are in this war, and I consider this a gift of grace, humanity, and forgiveness from the people of Iraq, the same can be said about Afghanistan.