Matthew Yglesias wonders whether the electoral politics of Abu Ghraib might not break in favor of Bush. After all, there's a constituency for erring on the side of doing too much to protect America by torturing terrorists.
Yes ... but what Matt's post really illustrates is how issues are framed is crucial to this election. First, the notion that what went on at Abu Ghraib is in anyway about protecting America needs to be overturned.
And the notion that the people at Abu Ghraib were "accused terrorists," well, being accused doesn't make you a terrorist. Wasn't innocence until proven guilty one of those great liberal democratic reforms we were going to bring to Iraq?
No better place to start than the justice system. By permitting/encouraging American troops [and contractors] to behave in a way that was a little too close to Saddam Hussein's regime the moral case for the war really is undercut.
The "It's OK because we're doing it" and "our hearts are good because we're American" attitude which underlies any defence of what went on at Abu Ghraib is a precursor to continuing torture.
Posted by robe0419 at June 12, 2004 10:52 AM