Official Response?

"I don't mean to be dodging the question, although it's kinda convenient in this case." <br /><br />Hah. So classic. Way to go there, Prez. <br /><br />Consequences from Abu Ghraib: <br /><br />Soldiers said that they were “just following orders.” Word of this has waaaay increased membership in terrorist organizations. <br /><br />Logical conclusions: <br /><br />Why haven’t there been more serious consequences? <br /><br />The Bush Administration cites two factors. <br /><br />First, Private Contractors were hired to conduct the “interrogations” in Iraq. <br />These contractors are not subject to military law. <br /><br />Secondly, different countries have different rules of law. There are different uniform Codes of Conduct in both Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (another holding facility). <br /><br />The American Government officially does “not torture” and should thereby not be responsible for the prisoner abuse at either place. <br /><br />Soooo then, exactly who is responsible? <br />Which code of law should punish the transgressors? <br /><br />My conclusions: <br /><br />The events of Abu Ghraib seems to demonstrate the impressionability and obedience of people when provided with a legitimizing ideology, social power, and institutional support. <br /><br />Or as one Lord Acton once remarked, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”