Way back in early 2004, a time when the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein wasn’t quite considered an apt role model for the humane treatment of prisoners (at least by most experts), it was disclosed that his former prisons were in fact still being engaged for the use of torturing its inmates. What was most distressing about this emergent reality then was myriad and not slight… 1) people still being tortured; 2) then the discovery of who was doing the torturing; 3) the perverse methods of our torture; 4) the torturers recording their perversion for intimidation, pleasure, and for posterity; 5) the admission that our torture is or should not be constrained by any codicils of the Geneva Convention; and finally 6) that our torture is not ‘torture’, merely abuse. Initially many people here at home reacted with genuine shame and horror. Truly unbelievable, these were not our American soldiers, how could it be? Single-handedly they imbued almost everything America stood for. A demand for an immediate investigation came forth from every decent soul left in the country. Moreover those who have dishonored our country in the eyes of the world must be brought to a painful justice (exceedingly) for their crime. But wait, the US Army had already concluded an investigation, and was engaged in another ongoing one to get to all the facts and to truly punish those perpetrators. Within a fortnight a riveting Senate hearing to salve the national disgrace produced a newly-minted national hero for counterbalance, the author of the US Army’s report on the abuses that occurred at Abu Ghraib. Hailed and saluted by those senators who would later pass legislation to prevent the Red Cross from visiting Camp X-ray, he was to be quite highly regarded for his forthrightness and candor. Accordingly as a hero who never really existed, after concluding this critical assignment for the public’s consumption he deftly slipped back into the shadows with not a shot fired since.

Today, our leadership does discern the difference between abuse and torture, we abuse – they torture; ‘they’ being the terrorists. We have no choice but to because any evil sort of hypothetical bomb might go off in one of our major cities and, without putting a suspect through anything closely resembling the due process prescribed in our laws and Bill of Rights, our people will die. Understand, our leader has said “We don’t torture”. So did General Taguba in his forgotten report as well, in which he never once accused a single soldier of any crime of torture, despite all that we have learned since then. Importantly, we’ve learned (all to sadly) that the torture hasn’t stopped. During the Senate hearings we were not allowed to see all the 400+ pictures & video of acts that are unmistakably torture. If we cannot get our military to stop torturing, cannot get our leaders to admit they sanction torture after all, cannot get our fellow citizens to look at the torturing going on and use their disgust (and more importantly their votes) to remove those who would create legalities for it, why further any pretense? Can we find any reason or necessity why this is to be called “abuse” any longer, especially in this seminal Taguba report? Seminal in that it began that lie of no complicity from the higher-ups, no policy of torturing to begin with.

This report actually serves to protect the detention system that is in place for Iraq, if the Army’s contention is that there could be nothing wrong with Abu Ghraib Prison systematically, other than abusive guards and poor leadership. If one does a search for the word “torture” in the report you will only find it juxtaposed to the word “simulated” once. While the word “abuse” is preferred throughout to describe what occurred with the 800th military police brigade.

Why is this so and should it matter? Because the military personnel in question may perform less than in line with this doctrine but could never carry out “unlawful orders” such as the torture that occurred to facilitate the interrogations. By stating it as such throughout the reports entirety it would imply that this particular system, a system that admittedly acquired information of little value with its methods, could not be implemented again in a better fashion with more useful result if it “sets the conditions for the successful interrogation and exploitation of internees/detainees” according to the JIDC commander.

Now it was for our public to believe that a few reservists and 1 negligent BG should be found to be the main cause of this one outrageous incident and its disastrous bearing upon US policy towards the Middle Easterners. Unfortunately for the Army some of us will never believe, but not because of any attempt to protect the Command in this report.