Here we go...

"The report said prisoner interrogation policies in Iraq were inadequate and deficient, and changes made by Rumsfeld between Dec. 2002 and April 2003 in what interrogation techniques were permitted contributed to uncertainties in the field as to what actions were allowed and what were forbidden."

Above is a direct quote from a Reuters article on the investigation into the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers at Abu Ghraib, in a facility being used as a detention center. The article goes on to say that not only did Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld fail to exercise proper insight over "confusing detention policies," but also that the "interrogation techniques" employed at Abu Ghraib were, essentially, coercive techniques that Rumsfeld allowed for in Guantanamo which had migrated to the Middle-East, "where they were neither limited or safeguarded."

I don't know if you have seen the "unregulated" photos that prompted the investigation, but here is an idea: American soldiers, male and female, wearing plastic gloves and shit-eating grins pose with peace signs and thumbs-ups behind a pile of Iraqi detainees wearing nothing but masks or full hoods. There are numerous photos of 3 or more detainees at a time in homo-erotic positions, sitting on each other's faces, laps, shoulders, etc. When American soldiers are present in the photos, they literally look like they are laughing their asses off.

First of all, it is ridiculous to me that the humiliation and abuse of Iraqi soldiers is being pawned off as some sort of interrogation process. You cannot tell me that the behavior demonstrated by certain American soldiers in those photos was in any way contributing to American military intelligence. Give me a fucking break. Also, I highly doubt whether the captors in these cases were mixed up about "confusing detention policies." Which policy is it exactly that never quite says decisively whether or not it's correct military conduct to strip prisoners of war naked and make them stimulate gay sex? That one is so hard to figure out. I mean, maybe it's necessary, right? Come the fuck on.

The panel investigating the allegations (yeah sure, allegations), headed by former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, has found that abuses against war prisoners are not limited to Abu Ghraib; there are approximately 300 cases being investigated between Guantanamo, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Clearly, this wasn't just some slip-up by the officers at Abu Ghraib. Thank goodness there was a White House spokesman around to tell us what was really going on; Scott McClellan told reporters at Bush's ranch in Texas (does that guy ever work?) that, "it's important that those who are responsible for the appalling acts at Abu Ghraib are held accountable. It's also important to take a broad look and make sure that there are no systemic problems." You fucking ass-wipe. I'm pretty sure he said that last sentence while coughing into his hand. I encourage you to watch the news and see how the lying liars that make up our current administration are going to completely dance around this matter. It's going to be quite a show.

As for Rumsfeld, of course he won't be asked to resign, he probably won't even be asked to perform (despite ALLOWING abusive behavior at Guantanamo). He has heard what the investigating panel has to say and his response? Oh, it's a good one, he states, "the panel has provided important information and recommendations that will be of assistance in our ongoing efforts to improve detention operations." Well, golly, that's swell, Don. Did they mention anything about it looking really fucking bad and amoral for American fucking soldiers to abuse and humiliate war prisoners AND to capture it all on film for no fucking reason?!?! Was that part of the "important information?" Is it important for soldiers to be trained at all? Was that in the memo?

The report released by Schlesinger's panel states that, "The abuses were not just the failure of some individuals to follow known standards, and they are more than the failure of a few leaders to enforce proper discipline. There is both institutional and personal responsibility at higher levels."

Look, I won't pretend to know what it's like to be employed in a war. I cannot even begin to imagine the huge burden of stress that must accompany even having the smallest connection to fighting a war. Our administration however, our fucking Commander in Chief, and those people that hold his strings, cannot allow our soldiers to go into a war with the notion that abuse or humiliation as a war tactic is tolerable at any level. When soldiers assume that abuse of individuals is acceptable, the next step becomes torture, rape, ethnic cleansing, and genocide as a means to win a war. Those people over there are young, and scared, and probably mad as hell at most Iraqis they encounter, but it is our government who should be held accountable for those soldiers knowing what is right and wrong when it comes to war. And frankly, I don't trust this administration to maintain a moral responsibility in this war, I don't believe they care. They'd rather let a bunch of inexperienced, red-necks go over there and act at will and fucking call it patriotism. Wake me when it's over.



-all info gathered from Reuters and NY Times articles.

The Aggression Question

Here's the scene: It is a beautiful Sunday afternoon here in Austin. I am laying in the sun, reading a book on the grass, after taking a dip in the the local spring. Perfect Sunday. It's pretty crowded at the springs, lots of good people watching (including a topless chick with nipple rings and a fucking red star tattooed ON HER FOREHEAD... no, I'm not kidding). As I am finishing a chapter, a fella decides on the spot of grass next to me, spreads out a towel, and heads for the water. I don't pay too much attention; it's a pretty good book. When this fella comes back to his towel, I notice something... he's totally hot. But not hot in that obnoxious I-bang-chicks-for-breakfast sort of way. Instead, he's healthy looking, nice face, excellent proportions, probably early thirties. Hot. As we are both laying there, alone, he gets a phone call. He is incredibly warm to the caller who is another guy (I know because he called him 'bro'). He makes small talk for a minute and then begins to describe where he is. As he is doing this, he looks in my exact direction and says, "Yep, it's looking pretty gorgeous out here today."

First of all, it was gorgeous out that day, and he may well have just been stating the obvious. If I, however, had gotten on the phone and proceeded to look his way and say something like, "Yeah, it's hot as shit out here, I'm all about it," I would completely accept him thinking that I was essentially referring to him. I won't try to say that I was looking "gorgeous," but I was half-naked and all wet (from swimming in the water, perverts) and we were all of two feet apart. I'm not saying he was hitting on me, but I'm not saying he wasn't hitting on me.

I felt I had two options: start talking this guy up and hope for the best, or sit tight and hope he starts talking me up. I continued to lay there, half reading my book, half straining my eyes to check him out, and what kept popping into my head was this question of aggression. I have always had a tendency to be (ahem) somewhat aggressive when it comes to pursuing men. Generally though, I become aggressive when I am sure that the targeted person is also attracted to me. Or when the targeted person is cornered and there is little chance of escape. It's definitely not that I prefer to be the aggressor, I just get tired of wondering, and I find the whole act of being coy rather boring. I am (almost) always flattered when a man approaches me in a not-cheesey way. But it truly doesn't happen too often. Not that I am belly-aching exactly, I am just stating the facts.

Anyway, back to being aggressive. I find that in certain aspects of my day to day life, being aggressive is an asset. I won't back down from an argument because a person is trying to be intimidating; I won't settle for less than I feel I deserve when it comes to work and academics; I initiate changes and activity in my life. Being aggressive helps me negotiate this world in a way that I accept. Being aggressive has also caused me to be labeled a hard-ass, a ball-breaker, and a macho, macho man. I don't know where I get my aggressive tendencies from, neither of my parents are particularly assertive, I never beat kids up on the playground (unless they started it), but it is definitely a quality that I can't be defined without. And it has always been something that (I know this is a generalization) I find unfeminine about myself. I am far, far, far away from ever being cast as dainty, but still, as a woman, I want to be feminine.

Of course, I do believe that the face of femininity is changing. But it is hard to shake the idea of my own face, in a determined effort to dive face first down the pants of the guy laying next to me on the grass, as being considerably unfeminine while in the midst of an aggressive pursuit. Do men like aggressive women? And if they do, do they consider such women to be particularly feminine? Does it even matter?

I continued to lay there, finishing my book, pondering this question of aggression. I am sure that I thought too much about it (when is that never the case?), but I decided against striking the conversation match. The hot fella next to me started for the water again, and convincing myself that I was getting too much sun, I packed my things and left.

In the end, with my femininity in tact, I feel like a fucking jackass. It's been three days since this happened, and I am still thinking about it. What a reward.