Agosto 24, 2004
Unauthorized Sadism

Extra! Extra! An independent commission of U.S. defence experts has figured out what happened at Abu Ghraib prison.

Let's hear from the head of the commission, former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger:

"There was sadism on the night shift…sadism that was not authorized,"

Really? Oh, okay, so that's what happened...

Can someone please tell me that the U.S. government doesn't authorize sadism. Cause that's what it sounds like from this dude's statement. He makes it clear that this sadism was of the variety that was un-authorized. As opposed to the authorized kind, which isn't supposed to exist, so it's usually not necessary to make a distinction. Like, I'm not trying to sound naive here, I know there's a bunch of nasty CIA dudes hanging around any kind of prison like that who are going: "Come on, lets shove some stuff up their asses, it'll be fun!"

We all know that shit goes on. We all know that the U.S. is gleefully beating and starving and pissing on all those "Al-Qaeda" guys/any poor Arab they could scrounge up, down there in Guantanamo Bay. We know this. But what the fuck is Schlesinger talking about? Surely any there is no way that sadism, (sadism! dictionary def: 1.The deriving of sexual gratification or the tendency to derive sexual gratification from inflicting pain or emotional abuse on others.
2. The deriving of pleasure, or the tendency to derive pleasure, from cruelty.
3.Extreme cruelty.)
Surely there is no way that sadism could be "authorized". So why is he making the distinction? Is it just so that we all know that those MPs -- the ones who made all those Iraqis jerk off and pretend to fuck each other; the ones who electrocuted their balls, and dressed them up in Halloween costumes and shit -- decided to do so themselves? Without any "authorization" from anybody else higher up? Well no....because he also said this:

"There was institutional and personal responsibility right up the chain of command as far as Washington is concerned,"

So what does he mean by:

"sadism that was not authorized,"

No shit it wasn't authorized Jim. What the fuck are you talking about?

Posted by King at Agosto 24, 2004 02:48 PM

I think he meant it in the style of, "here, have this chocolate bar I absolutely didn't steal from a convenience store."

That or, the 2002 memo from White House counsel that says it was okay to torture was, y'know, just for fun.

Posted by: D on Agosto 24, 2004 04:10 PM .

Yeah, some of that shit is ice cold. I mean, you gotta appreciate the fucking balls on whoever decided to use "self-defense" as an excuse for torture.

All of this shit is so fucked up. I mean, we can't forget that in a lot of cases, let's face it, they are dealing with Islamic extremists who are seriously, seriously demented, in my opinion. I mean Allah or no Allah, you don't publicly behead innocent people (or anyone for that matter), and you don't blow innocent people up on a regular basis. Or plot to do so, or manipulate religious material toward the purposes of getting people to blow other people up. I'm just not cool with any of that shit.

But at the same time, these guys -- Bush, his administration, the White House counsel, whoever it is, is really playing with fire. I mean, if the U.S. says it's okay to torture (which it basically has now that those Abu Ghraib pictures have been primetime on Al Jazeera) then I don't want to go on holiday anywhere, ever again. Cause if the United States, where lawyers rule the land, and a woman can get $650 000 for spilling coffee on her lap, says it's okay to torture people, do you think they're gonna go easy on you in the Middle East, or in China, or in Russia, or in Africa, or pretty much anywhere else in the world? No. They'll tape electrodes to your balls for littering, and then go for ice cream -- you know what I mean?

I like the loopholes they've tried to put forward too. I mean, not counting terrorists as POWs because they technically don't qualify as an army seems to make sense, but then again, If this really is a War on Terror, then who are we at war with? Terrorists right? So if they're taken prisoner, then aren't they prisoners of war? Otherwise, we can't be at war. Because if we're not at war with terrorists then who are we at war with? Terror? And if it's just a technical thing about them not being an army, then shouldn't we be calling it something besides a war? Because, believe it or not, there are rules of warfare, which is why people can be prosecuted for war crimes. So I don't know...I think they have to call it something else besides war. Or they need to re-open some cases and make sure that all those confiscated during the War on Drugs are released, or at the very least, protected from torture. Don't hurt the Marijuana people. It didn't do anything to you. Don't tape electrodes to the weed and make it fuck cocaine up the ass with a broom handle. Please....

Posted by: king on Agosto 24, 2004 05:23 PM .

I hate Americans this week. If they're not stealing gold medals from plucky South Koreans (just give it back!), they're issuing whitewash reports pointing the finger at lowest paid, least educated guy (or gal) in the room, whilst letting the folk who can spell 'Geneva Convention' off the hook.

AND this is on top of the stench of John Kerry trying to make political capital off his military record instead of talking about issues that matter and the abhorence the Republicans complicitly endorsing lies in return.

Are Americans worried about it? NOPE. Thery're too busy stopping happy gay people getting married cos that will undermine society and be bad. JESUS.

Posted by: Mekon on Agosto 25, 2004 12:15 PM .

I think this might be an example of "authorized sadism".
See page 4 for Rumsfeld's witty retort!

Posted by: marijke on Agosto 26, 2004 02:51 PM .
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?