From the WSJ Opinion Archives
Abu
Ghraib and the Academic Left
Reporting from Cumberland, Md., the New York Times profiles some of the soldiers
implicated in abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, and to be honest, they
sound like a bunch of losers:
Specialist Charles A. Graner Jr. is a guard at one of Pennsylvania's most heavily secured death row prisons, accused by his former wife of violent behavior.
Pfc. Lynndie R. England was married and divorced before she was 21, worked at a chicken-processing plant in West Virginia and wanted to attend college to become a storm-chasing meteorologist.
And Staff Sgt. Ivan Frederick, another prison guard, planned to quit the Army Reserve this year to spend more time fishing near his rural home in central Virginia. But he did not get out soon enough. . . .
Specialist Graner, who wears a Marine Corps eagle tattoo on his right arm, served in the corps from April 1988 until May 1996, when he left with the rank of corporal, according to military records. He went to work immediately at the State Correctional Institution Greene, in southwestern Pennsylvania, where he has held an entry-level corrections officer position ever since.
Two years after he arrived at Greene, the prison was at the center of an abuse scandal. Prison officials declined to say whether Specialist Graner had been disciplined in that case, citing privacy laws.
Inmates and advocates for prisoner rights asserted in 1998 that guards at the prison routinely beat and humiliated prisoners, including through a sadistic game of Simon Says in which guards struck prisoners who failed to comply with barked instructions.
After an investigation, the warden was transferred, two lieutenants were fired and about two dozen guards were reprimanded, demoted or suspended.
Specialist Graner was involved in a bitter divorce. In court papers, his wife, Staci, accused him of beating her, threatening her with guns, stalking her after they separated in 1997 and breaking into her home. Since 1997, local judges have issued at least three orders of protection against him, records show.
No doubt many people enter the military and successfully overcome troubled lives. But it also occurs to us that increasing the quality of military recruits would probably help avoid future Abu Ghraibs. One constructive step toward that end would be for elite universities to drop antimilitary policies, so that the military would have an easier time signing up the best and brightest young Americans.
Many academic institutions have barred ROTC or military recruiters from campus for left-wing political reasons--first as a protest against the Vietnam War, and later over the Clinton-era "don't ask, don't tell" law. Whatever the merits of these positions, it's time the academic left showed some patriotic responsibility and acknowledged that the defense of the country--which includes the defense of their own academic freedom--is more important than the issue du jour.
The
Last Refuge
The Associated Press goes to Fort Ashby, W.Va., where it interviews friends
of Spc. Lynndie England, the 21-year-old Army reservist who appears in two pictures
with naked Iraqi prisoners:
''It's ridiculous,'' said Destiny Goin, 21, who has lived with England's extended family since high school and considers herself England's sister.
''It's her picture that you see more than anyone else's, and she really wasn't involved. She was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.'' . . .
England was trained to be a ''paper pusher'' who helped process prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, said Goin and England's brother-in-law James Klinestiver. She was in the area where the photos were taken to visit friends in the 372nd who served as guards, the two said.
Goin and Klinestiver said the family is furious with the comments of President Bush, who said he was ''disgusted'' by the photographs.
''He doesn't know what these guys are going through,'' Klinestiver said. Referring to Bush's limited National Guard service during the Vietnam War, he added, ''How can you make decisions for our military unless you've served yourself?''
John Kerry suddenly finds himself in dubious company indeed when complaining about Republicans who didn't serve in the military.
'So
Called Saddam'
Rep. Maxine Waters, a far-left Californian and member of the Congressional Black
Caucus, had this to say in an interview yesterday with the "Democracy Now"
radio program: "Everywhere we go we seem to be creating a mess. We've created
a mess in Iraq, and our soldiers are dying every day. Now we find that we are
violating the prisoners. We're treating them worse than so-called Saddam had
treated them."
With all due respect to the glories of free speech, this is pathetic. What happened at Abu Ghraib is bad enough without exaggerating it by preposterously calling it worse than Saddam. And "so-called Saddam"? Does Waters simply believe America's enemies don't exist?
By contrast, here's a clear-sighted bit of outrage from Christopher Hitchens, a supporter of Iraq's liberation:
One of two things must necessarily be true. Either these goons were acting on someone's authority, in which case there is a layer of mid- to high-level people who think that they are not bound by the laws and codes and standing orders. Or they were acting on their own authority, in which case they are the equivalent of mutineers, deserters, or traitors in the field. This is why one asks wistfully if there is no provision in the procedures of military justice for them to be taken out and shot.
That last bit is a tad overwrought, but Hitchens makes an important point: Those who are guilty here have committed crimes against America as well as against the prisoners.
Good
News Watch
The Washington Post reports from Baghdad on Hasham Mohsen Lazim, an apparently
innocent man who was picked up last August and incarcerated at Abu Ghraib for
24 days:
"Something awful happened to me," Lazim said during a two-hour interview broken by long pauses of silent despair. "I will never forget it until the day I die."
Lazim, 34, was prisoner No. 15227, according to his release papers. He said he was one of the hooded men in the photographs taken inside an Abu Ghraib cellblock that have generated worldwide revulsion. Although his identity could not be confirmed from the photographs, his account was supported by a friend from the prison, Hayder Sabbar Abd, who said he experienced the same treatment and could identify both himself and American guards from the photos. Lazim's papers show that he was in Abu Ghraib when the abuses occurred late last year.
What's heartening about this is what he's doing now:
Lazim has completed a course in Jordan to become an officer in the new U.S.-sponsored Iraqi police force. His uniform hangs at home as he awaits orders for where to report. He will be joining a force the U.S. occupation authority is counting on to help stabilize the country. . . .
He was asked why he would now join the U.S.-sponsored Iraqi police force.
"I want to do it because I will never hold an innocent man," he said. "I wanted to make sure it wouldn't happen again to someone else."
Meanwhile, here's an encouraging note we received from reader Bernard Marchois (you may remember him):
Sorry, I'm in a foreign country and don't have my dictionary. So is my English very bad. Alas, cruelty is in the human nature and the U.S. soldiers aren't better than others. I wrote to the WSJ a lot of times, with very strong criticisms, because I don't like Mr. Bush and his politics. But I must say one thing: Only in the U.S. you can read, see and hear that the administration accept to show the dark side, in all the abhorrent details. This is, despite all the errors, a real lesson of democracy. In France, my country, this is impossible. Never a French government will recognize the Army's abuses.
Americans have reason to feel good about our country, in spite of what some rogue soldiers have done in its name.
Distorting
Mirror--II
Another left-wing London paper is raising the possibility that the Mirror tabloid
published phony abuse photos. "Senior sources on the Daily Mirror privately
acknowledged yesterday that the newspaper had serious problems with its publication
of photographs purporting to show British soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners,"
reports the Independent.
Mirror editor Piers Morgan says he stands by the story, but "sources at the Mirror took a different view and compared the situation with previous gaffes made by the paper. 'We are just hoping to brazen it out,' one said, adding that Mr Morgan was a 'past master' at toughing out such situations." We noted the controversy Tuesday.
Pelosi:
$25 Billion Isn't Enough
President Bush plans to seek a $25 billion supplemental appropriation to fund
the war in Iraq, and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, has issued
a statement saying it isn't enough:
By requesting just $25 billion in additional money for our troops in Iraq--when we know that at least twice that amount will be needed--the Bush Administration is once again keeping the true cost of the war from the American people.
Does this mean Pelosi will double the appropriation? Don't hold your breath. When the House approved an emergency appropriation last year, Pelosi cast one of 121 "no" votes, and unlike John Kerry, she didn't vote for the $87 billion before she voted against it.
'Realism,'
New York Times Style
The New York Times editorializes in favor of John Kerry's plan for Iraq, and
for a minute we thought we'd been too tough on Kerry. Kerry "proposes designating
an international high commissioner for Iraq whose office would be outside the
barely functional, patronage-driven U.N. personnel system," opines the
Times. "That would permit the recruitment of a capable staff and create
some safeguards against the kind of wholesale corruption that is alleged to
have vitiated the U.N.'s oil-for-food program in Iraq."
Wow, Kerry and the Times are acknowledging that the U.N. is "barely functional, patronage-driven" and permeated with "wholesale corruption"? Is reality setting in?
Maybe not. Consider the start of the editorial's final paragraph:
Mr. Kerry's ideas would have been difficult to put into effect a year ago. They would be extremely hard to carry out now, and impossible by next January, should he defeat Mr. Bush. But they at least reflect a realistic view of what the United Nations--and the United States--can and cannot do.
So Kerry's proposal would have been "difficult" a year ago, is "extremely hard" now, and will be "impossible" to implement by the time Kerry is in a position to do so--and yet the Times calls this "realistic"?
The
Buck Stops on My Speechwriter's Desk
In December, The New Republic's Lawrence Kaplan notes, John Kerry gave a speech
at the Council on Foreign Relations in which he "recommended dispatching
Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, or former Secretary of State James Baker to Israel
as special envoys--a tone-deaf proposal, given Carter's and Baker's reputations
as vituperative critics of Israel." Realizing that this is no way to win
Jewish votes, at a February meeting with Jewish leaders, Kerry backpedaled in
remarkable fashion:
One of the first things Kerry did at the meeting was to blame his aides for the mention of Carter and Baker as possible envoys in his December speech--a claim that several participants double-checked as soon as they walked out the door. The names, Kerry said, had been inserted by mistake, and he had even asked that they be removed. The problem is, in the speech itself, Kerry said, "There are a number of uniquely qualified Americans among whom I would consider appointing, including President Carter. . . . And, I might add, I have had conversations with both President Clinton and President Carter about their willingness to do this." Kerry spokesperson Stephanie Cutter even confirmed to The Boston Globe in December that he had spoken with Carter. Today, the campaign offers this explanation: The candidate eventually did speak with Carter--but only after noticing that a draft of his speech said that he spoke with Carter.
Kaplan wonders "what sort of approach a candidate who, in Israel's case, genuinely has straddled the fence would enshrine in official policy. The answer may lie with the last person who whispers in his ear."
'I
Miss Her Mother Every Day'
The Cincinnati Enquirer tells this touching story from a campaign visit by President
Bush to Lebanon, Ohio:
Lynn Faulkner, his daughter, Ashley, and their neighbor, Linda Prince, eagerly waited to shake the president's hand Tuesday at the Golden Lamb Inn. He worked the line at a steady campaign pace, smiling, nodding and signing autographs until Prince spoke:
"This girl lost her mom in the World Trade Center on 9-11."
Bush stopped and turned back.
"He changed from being the leader of the free world to being a father, a husband and a man," Faulkner said. "He looked right at her and said, 'How are you doing?' He reached out with his hand and pulled her into his chest."
Faulkner snapped one frame with his camera.
"I could hear her say, 'I'm OK,' " he said. "That's more emotion than she has shown in 2 1/2 years. Then he said, 'I can see you have a father who loves you very much.' "
"And I said, 'I do, Mr. President, but I miss her mother every day.' It was a special moment."
Faulkner later said: "I'm a pretty cynical and jaded guy at this point in my life. But this was the real deal. I was really impressed. It was genuine and from the heart."
The
Anger Monopoly
Philip Doyen, a Maine-based entrepreneur, has set up a telephone service called
the "Vent-Line," which charges callers $1.99 a minute "to blow
off steam," Reuters reports. But the callers aren't the only ones steamed.
"But some professional counseling services aren't happy about Doyen's business
and are urging prosecutors to investigate whether he is breaking any state laws,
the Portland Press Herald newspaper reported on Tuesday":
"For some people, venting is going to upset them more," Leslie Brancato of the Community Counseling Center in Portland, Maine, told the paper. "That he's charging $1.99 a minute is, in my opinion, totally exploitative."
There's no word how much Leslie Brancato charges.
Iowa
Stands on Principle (Occasionally)
The University of Iowa's athletic department canceled a baseball game with Bradley
University of Peoria, Ill., because it objected to the Bradley mascot, the Daily
Iowan reports:
The game was originally scheduled to be played [Tuesday], but the athletics department canceled the nonconference game in February, recognizing that Bradley's nickname--the Braves--falls under the university's policy to not schedule nonconference games with teams that have American Indian mascots.
The paper notes that Iowa teams do play the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, despite its Chief Illiniwek mascot, "because of contract and Big Ten conference obligations." But when it comes to nonconference games Iowa stands on principle.
Actually, if they were really going to be consistent, they'd change the name of their own university. After all, Iowa itself is named for an Indian tribe.
(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Michael Segal, Michael Duval, Henry Hanks, David Stoughton, Terry Young, Rosanne Klass, Edward Schulze, John Hartness, Henry Stern, Tom Linehan, Gil Yoder, Ed Lasky, Matthew Noonan, William Specht, Mark Cole, Ethel Fenig, Alia Darrow, Steve Roberts, Kevin Schmidt, Rob Baas, David Schlosser, Robert Dow, Milo Grummons, Charlie Gaylord, Adam Steiner, Aaron Ammerman, George Sabatino and Jim Peacock. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)
Today on OpinionJournal:
- Review & Outlook: The military, not CBS, discovered the outrages at Abu Ghraib.
- Peggy Noonan: Why the abuse of Iraqi prisoners is so disheartening.
- Julia Vitullo-Martin: A jury's decision hinders the Ground Zero rebuilding plan. Maybe it's for the best.
