I was scanning my radio dial last night for news and came across L.A.'s 97.1--Ted and somebody were speaking to callers. They were spouting Republican talking points, points I now realize were started by Rush Limbaugh (he outrageously stated that the Abu Ghraib prison abuse was nothing more than fraternity hazing) and the junior Republican senator from Oklahoma (Sen. John McCain walked out on his speech) that falsely claimed all the prisoners were murderers who didn't deserve to be treated well (our own military reports that 70 - 90% of detainees were jailed there by mistake). The radio hosts had moved on to calling the Iraqi prisoners, "turds" because of the al-Quaida beheading.
I called in to contest their analogy to fraternity hazing. Over their shouts that I was naive and uninformed I managed to make the point that we shouldn't abuse prisoners so that our prisoners don't get abused, and that college men choose to join fraternities and that the prisoners in Iraq were in a totally different situation--that the soldiers had been instructed by their superiors to make those prisoners' lives "hell." When they challenged my assertion that the torture in Iraq was much worse than hazing, I suggested that they read the New Yorker and Newsweek so that _they_ could be better informed.
I thought the radio hosts were going to cut me off any minute, but they just kept calling me stupid and talking over me--trying to tell me the ways fraternities WERE just like the prisoners. I'll concede two reasons now (although I didn't last night):
1. Humiliation.
2. Accidental Death (the radio hosts didn't raise this point).
Here are the more compelling reasons why fraternities are NOT like Abu Ghraib:
1. Fraternity hazing does not lead to our soldiers being at higher risk for enemy prison torture. If we really care about American soldiers lives and treatment when they are prisoners, we need to do what's right with our prisoners.
2. Fraternity hazing does not (that I'm aware of) sodomize with brooms and light fixtures, allow dogs to bite pledges, nor chemically burn pledges (of course, some fraternities inexplicably use branding; a sick practice formerly used on slaves and now cattle). All of these tortures and more were exacted on Iraqi prisoners.
3. Fraternity hazing is not a systematic abuse approved by the Bush administration and their civilian commanders. The soldiers were wrong, but no one has yet stepped forward to say who told them and allowed them to do it. If that happens we'll be a lot more likely to move on from this.
4. Fraternity hazing is meant to create trust and intimacy between "brothers." Torture is meant to terrorize prisoners so that they will spill what they know. I seriously wonder how much intelligence we successfully scared out of a bunch of terrorized rural Iraqis...
The radio show hosts, if they had a noble goal, was to heal this humiliating wound so that we can continue a strong fight in Iraq. Thus, we had the caller (who they knew) saying wise things like, "When you're in a fight, and you hold your buddy to keep him from getting hurt more, that's when he'll get hit..." He was saying that the prison scandle was making the U.S. vulnerable--that we need to move on. This is understandable, but unlikely by their methods. I suggest we move on not by denying that what we did was wrong, but admitting that torture is a mistake (why can't Republicans do this?) and finding the responsible wrong-doers. Can we really believe the soldiers did it on their own--their supervision was completely absent?
The radio hosts, on the other hand, were suggesting that we nuke Iraq as retribution for the beheading. Everyone is reluctant to assign amy blame to the prison images for some reason (ironically, this truly implicates the press!). I think that the publicizing of the Abu Ghraib images encouraged the publicizing of the al-Quaida killing (even though this type of killing has happened before and would again). This is the same horrifying method of execution that was used for Daniel Pearl. In some ways, making the images of war more available may help everyone finish this sooner--they make it more evident that al-Qaida needs to be destroyed.
It's such a strange situation--these prisoners in Iraq are not even prisoners of war (technically), and we're supposed to be building Iraq and offering Iraqis freedom!! I don't even think al- Quaida was there before we were. The double speak is incredible! Which is it? War or Freedom??? Turds or people in need? Okay, we're at war with terrorism, sometimes in Iraq, sometimes in Afghanistan, but we're also freeing Iraq (because we decided that's what they want).
Even in the face of these abuses of power, the Bushies ask, "...who wouldn't want to be freed by us?" Anyone who disagrees with their current "policy" is called "an enemy of freedom." Ridiculous--the U.S. is afraid to give Iraqis real freedom--that and the oil, is why we're still there!
After my call, I was continually referred to as stupid and uninformed, one suggested that I was the (presumably loathed) ex-wife of one of the hosts. Later, a man called in and stated that he couldn't believe I was defending the al-Quaida beheading of an American civilian. What?! On the air, I had clearly condemned the beheading and called it evil, and said it was the same evil that caused 9/11. Neither radio host corrected him, they just let the false accusation linger. I can see that Ted and his pal have a lot of respect for the truth, and that theirs is the only truth.
America right or wrong?
Simply put, we're at peace when we're in the right. Wanting to be wrong (having the arrogance and untethered morals to say America can do whatever it wants), or making wrongs "seem" right, encourages violence and war. We can't expect others not to respond to our wrongs. Before they do, we have to try to right our wrongs through responsible and punitive means without creating scapegoats. Even Bush stated that this is how our democracy works (either his fans aren't listening or Bush is lying). It all depends on what we want for America's role in the world, doesn't it? Harmony or violence.
In the black and white world of conservatives, men advocate war, and women (and pansies who live in Venice, CA and Santa Monica) advocate peace. Over the course of 90 minutes on 97.1, every caller was male, except two, and all the men agreed with the show hosts; two women called to disagree and offer peaceful alternatives. It shouldn't have to be that way--peaceful men, please speak up.
No comments:
Post a Comment