The Liberated. posted by Richard Seymour

I was going to say, Why is everyone so surprised? Torture has been a routine practise of the US in its client regimes across the Western Hemisphere. CIA manuals contain detailed instructions as to how agents may break subjects under interrogation with a range of techniques not dissimilar to those alleged in to be taking place in Guantanamo Bay. Training manuals produced by the School of the Americas (recently renamed "the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Co-operation", or Whisc) told future generals and dictators exactly how to inflict dazzling physical and psychological torment on victims – techniques ranging from humiliation to electrocution. To discover that such techniques are being used in "the New Iraq" is disturbing, but hardly a surprise.

Instead, I'm left slightly gob-smacked at the rapidity and detail of allegations and cruel photographs now pouring out of Iraq. It is hard to believe that this isn't ubiquitous:



What is jaw-dropping is the immediate attempts at minimisation deployed by the defenders of the war. Without even a day’s pause for reflection, it seems, they had their answer ready. I heard the line first on The Wright Stuff yesterday, mumbled by an inarticulate member of the public – it vaguely evoked the terrors of Ba'athism past and reminded us that this time last year, such events probably took place as part of official state policy. Only a few hours later, the Evening Standard reported the Prime Minister’s spokesperson as saying, "We fully accept that these things should not happen". But, after all, the abuse was "a clear breach of coalition rules – in contrast to the regime of Saddam Hussein which used torture as a matter of routine". Never mind that Amnesty International report having received numerous statements alleging US torture, just think about that argument – yes, we did it, but the Ba’athist regime did it all the time…
And that’s their defence? The replication of Ba’athist practises under this occupation is the most salient indictment of it. "Liberation" is surely a heroically elastic concept if it can include the possibility of "unofficial" – but apparently widespread – use of torture. And study those photographs again. Male and female American soldiers, grinning gleefully as they inflict sadistic punishment on Iraqi detainees. The anti-Arab racism which must have animated their joy may too be "unofficial", but it is also ubiquitous in American and British culture. That woman pointing her finger in the shape of a gun at an Iraqi’s penis is probably well within the normal psychological range – ditto those grinning soldiers posing beside the "human pyramid". But the people they have come to "liberate" are sufficiently emptied of human content in the military imagination that they can become the subjects of a negative fascination with pain and humiliation.



One has to take the righteous anger and expressions of disgust by military and political higher-ups with a hefty dose of salt. For example, Sir Mike Jackson, Chief of General Staff, said: "If proven, the perpetrators are not fit to wear the Queen's uniform and they have besmirched the Army's good name and conduct."

Could this be the same Mike Jackson who, on January 30th 1972, (then Captain Mike Jackson, and second-in-command to Lieutenant-General Derek Wilford) participated in the killing of 14 innocent civilians in the Bogside of Derry, Northern Ireland? The same who, witness statements suggest, could be seen cheering on the Parachute Regiment with the words "Go, paras, go!"? The same who then went on to contrive a "shot list" to sanitise the shootings (by making it appear that the dead were carrying nail-bombs and so forth), which he later denied having written?

Even more entertaining defenses are entered by members of the public on the BBC's website :

"To bad such outrage wasn't shown when the Twin towers fell and those bodies of construction works were hung on the bridge and their poor dead bodies abused. Let our justice system handle the soldiers who did this to prisoners but those who live in glass houses, should not be the first to throw stones! God Bless our Troops!"
Jean Mair, Morris, Illinois, Untied States of America

And better yet:

Whatever it takes to bring them in line.
Ken Azad, San Diego, Ca

It's just possible that such attitudes are not uncommon in the US army. Indeed, the anecdotal evidence now emerging suggests not condemnation but cover-up:

"One of the officers came down to get him and it was like, a bit of a mini-bollocking, but nothing really. Then it was, 'Get rid of him, I've not seen him. The paperwork gets ripped."

"We got a warning, saying the Military Police had found a video of people throwing prisoners off a bridge. It wasn't 'Don't do it' or 'Stop it'. It was 'Get rid of it.' "

A few questions remain. The Whitehouse and Downing Street are describing this episode as an isolated incident, and certainly against the rules and the grain of the coalition. But, who took those photographs? According to CBS, they were taken by guards. Well, do those soldiers look reticent? Do they look like they expect punishment or censure? No, they look rather like they expect and receive approval. It is possible that they trusted a few lackeys not to go blabbing with their explosive film to senior officers, but it looks more like they didn’t have a care in the world. It looks as if they may not have been worried about Brigadier General Janis Karpinski’s stern reproach. It looks, in short, as if only the trembling, hooded Iraqis had anything to worry about. Last word to the Mirror's anonymous source:

"I can't believe it has taken the Iraqis so long to fight back. If it had been me or my family, I'd have retaliated straightaway.

"They've just got f****d around so much. You can't go in now, and say 'Right, let's forget about what has happened and start again'.

"We're struggling now. There are too many people against us."