What can one say about the horrific pictures of Iraqi prisoners being humiliated and abused by America's heroes? And what does it say about the sexual perversions of the torturers? If only Foucault was alive. The New Yorker article shows that there has been a pattern of such abuse and torture. That is the key word here. We are not talking about one exception or two. What does that say about human capability for cruelty and abuse? I do not believe that some people are more prone to cruelty and savagery than others. I believe that we all--except Angry Arab perhaps--are capable of such deeds. That was the controversial point of Hanna Arendt in her masterpiece Eichmann in Jerusalem. For that, there are treaties and laws to govern the behavior of people, especially in war. But US armed forces operate under the least restraints and constraints. The US took itself out of the International Criminal Court. These are the implications. US public--not everybody for sure(through its opposition to membership in the ICC--and congressional democrats and republicans were opposed) gave its armed forces the right to engage in war crimes. When the pictures appeared in UK, there were demonstrations in protest and out of outrage, my mother noted to me this morning. Unlike me, my mother is a moderate Arab. Has there been one demonstration in US to protest the behavior of your "boys"? And what about the dead Iraqi civilians? Who will show us their pictures? Who will investigate their murder? It really angered me that the injury of a fictitious US soldier in "Doonesbury" comic strip received more attention than the real-life death and injury of real Iraqi civilians. But you know what I most blame? That silly line that I always hear when US goes to war. I even heard it in anti-war rallies before and after the Iraq war. I squirm whenever I hear some American liberal or leftist prefacing his/her remarks against the war by saying "while I support the troops, etc..." Even that silly Kucinich used to say that. What on earth does that mean? How can you oppose the war and support the troops in war? This is like saying, I oppose Hitler's wars, but I support the SS? Or I oppose Saddam's wars, but I support the Republican Guards. When you insist on parroting that line, you basically give a license to the troops to do whatever they wish. You should insist on not supporting the troops in wars you do not like. Instead, I state that I support those troops who refuse to fight in unjust wars. I salute all those conscientious objectors who do not wish to participate in Bush's colonial adventures.