Senator Imhofe: A Complete Lack of Humanity
James Chamblee
Inhofe Already!
May 15, 2004
By Alex Hacker
Of all possible reactions to the news of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse
and the uproar it has caused, Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe's outrage
is perhaps the most shocking, not because the Republican Senator has
expressed outrage at the atrocities that were committed by American
soldiers, but because he had the unbelievable gall to take umbrage at
those who have responded to these incidents with horror and dismay.
During Tuesday's session of the Senate Armed Services Hearing on Iraqi
Prisoner Treatment, Inhofe voiced his concern over "this outrage
everyone seems to have about the treatment of these prisoners... I'm
probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by
the outrage than we are by the treatment. The idea that these
prisoners - you know, they're not there for traffic violations. If
they're in cell block 1-A or 1-B, these prisoners, they're murderers,
they're terrorists, they're insurgents. Many of them probably have
American blood on their hands. And here we're so concerned about the
treatment of those individuals."
And so the cycle of outrage continues, because that is an outrageous
statement for anyone to make, and moreso for an elected official
purporting to represent his country.
First of all, no one "seems" to have outrage over these brutal,
unlawful acts.
We are outraged, period.
Perhaps if Inhofe paid attention to the overwhelming response of
people and politicians all over the world he might understand why.
But instead he just says that he is "more outraged by the outrage"
than he is "by the treatment."
That is perhaps the most stupid, backward, and inhumane thing said by
any politician since the war began (quite an achievement), and the
fact that Inhofe has support for his statements from some of his peers
in Congress and a portion of the populace is very scary and itself
outrageous, for his stance is representative of the kind of attitude
that can only lead to more atrocities.
Since Inhofe seems not to understand why "we're so concerned with the
treatment of those individuals," perhaps what seems obvious to most of
the human race needs to be stated again.
We are concerned because such atrocities are cruel and inhuman, and
they should not take place against anyone, anywhere, under any
circumstances.
It is quite simple.
There can be no excuses.
Inhofe, like President Bush, thinks it is somehow appropriate to bring
up Saddam's record of brutality, but that is a weak and childish
attempt to shift focus in the hope of escaping guilt.
"I would guess," he said, "that these prisoners wake up every morning
thanking Allah that Saddam Hussein is not in charge of these
prisoners."
At one point Saddam was presumably in charge of those prisoners, and
surely they would wish he still was, but that's beside the point: it's
doubtful that they thank anyone for anything when they awake.
Inhofe is suggesting that what those soldiers did to the Iraqi
prisoners was bad, but nothing compared to what evil Saddam has been
doing for years.
The funny thing about comparisons is that they work in two directions,
and once the focus is shifted back from Saddam onto the US soldiers,
their acts look more atrocious, not less.
The fact is that no amount of explanation or talking around the
subject can negate the feeling of repulsion, the natural and human
feeling of outrage that the majority of people everywhere felt on
seeing the photos of American soldiers torturing and abusing Iraqi
prisoners.
We are concerned and outraged because supposedly U.S. forces are over
there to end such atrocities, not propagate them.
Did someone forget to inform the troops?
Inhofe seems to believe that the nature of these prisoners' crimes has
something to do with this issue, with how they should or should not be
treated.
This is mere rhetoric, of course, standard political tripe, and it is
entirely irrelevant.
The claim that they are murderers, terrorists, and insurgents is worse
than irrelevant: it is, from a political and juridical standpoint,
untrue, because it has yet to be proven; no trials have taken place;
the prisoners are detainees, awaiting tribunal, which happens to be
one of the most basic of human rights.
Those prisoners are there because they are prisoners of war, and there
are international codes of conduct for the treatment of such
prisoners, the violation of which falls into the category of war
crime.
Since the Bush administration has seen fit to ignore international
agreements in pursuing this war, perhaps it is not surprising that the
soldiers it employs should follow suit, which is reason enough that
responsibility for these abuses be placed on the shoulders of those at
the highest levels of authority.
Inhofe says of Saddam that "when he was in charge they would take
electric drills and drill holes through hands, they would cut their
tongues out, they would cut their ears off."
And when Bush was in charge they sexually molested them.
Inhofe's outrage looks suspiciously like an attempt to hush the
dissenters before responsibility has time to step up the ladder to the
highest rung of authority.
He makes a feeble attempt to suggest that everything is under control,
that it's all been taken care of, with the implicit suggestion that we
should all just go back to our business now:
"I hasten to say yeah, there are seven bad guys and gals that didn't
do what they should have done. They were misguided, I think maybe even
perverted, and the things that they did have to be punished. And
they're being punished."
Bad?
The epithet is far from the mark.
More appropriate would be one the President is fond of: evil.
Those acts were evil, and yes (not maybe), "even perverted." And
Inhofe has it backwards, of course: it's not that they "didn't do what
they should have done," but that they did do what they shouldn't have
done.
They did things that they, nor anyone else should ever do.
And if they were "misguided" in doing such things, then who was their
guide?
It is not only seven "guys and gals," (Is that supposed to make them
seem more likeable?
As in "Oh, he's just one of the guys, you know, a sadistic sexual
pervert.) who are responsible; it is an entire chain of command.
It doesn't stop here.
If those with authority are going to suddenly divest themselves of
responsibility, there can be no guarantees that more atrocities will
not take place. Inhofe's statements, his outrage at the outrage of
others, is a barrier to such guarantees.
That is, in the end, why Inhofe's statements are so inappropriate, for
these are not, to use his tasteless remark, "traffic violations."
They represent, in the words of a recent statement issued by a
conference of eight Arab nations and UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan,
"a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law and basic
principles of humanity."
Inhofe would have the whole scandal swept under the rug immediately,
along with international law and everyone's humanity.
It is a blatant political move to make those of us in this country who
would (and will, despite or because of him) continue to speak out and
point fingers and express our outrage, feel somehow guilty for doing
so.
And he doesn't stop there:
"I am also outraged that we have so many humanitarian do-gooders right
now crawling all over these prisons, looking for human rights
violations while our troops, our heroes, are fighting and dying."
This statement is virtually impenetrable.
Since when did humanitarian do-gooders become a target for
disparagement?
Does he expect them to go out and fight the good fight, with our
"heroes," our troops, seven of whom are now being tried for what
amounts to war crimes?
Inhofe sounds like Saddam trying to avoid more inspections, and his
remark can only be interpreted as concern that perhaps there is more
to come.
If outrage should fade, as he wishes, and these investigations are not
carried through to the very end, to the very highest levels of
authority, then that concern could turn into yet another in a long
string of outrageous realities perpetrated by the Bush administration.
________________________________________________________
Inhofism is a disease that seems to spread quickly in the right wing
community. It's a genetic right wing disease of the mouth.
Harry