The ACLU doing what the ACLU does

The ACLU and its friends are close to admitting that there weren’t enough examples of real “torture” for them to complain about.

Having sued to get images from evidence files of military legal cases, the ACLU finally got 198 images involving soldiers accused of mistreating prisoners. There were about 2,000 photos, but most are withheld because, quite understandably, the military doesn’t want to provoke the the jihadists. The ACLU doesn’t care if it provokes more violence. They want to see all the photos no matter who gets hurt.

But this wasn’t interrogation, either by the military or the CIA. It was soldiers who allegedly committed crimes during the war. The trouble is, if our moral betters don’t have interrogation pictures, they need to dress up whatever they do have, and then act like it was all part of the same plan.

Kate Allen, Director of Amnesty International U.K., had the nerve to chime in here. To be more surreal, her piece is called, “Picture This: The Full Truth and Nothing But the Truth Over Torture During the War on Terror.”

Do any of these people care about the truth? I don’t think so.

No, I’m not kidding about that. I truly don’t believe they care about the truth. I don’t believe they oppose torture. I don’t even believe they oppose slavery. (No, I’m not kidding about that either.)

She is commenting almost six years to the day that, in 2010, the sky fell in for Amnesty as they abandoned their gender-rights chief in favor of Islamic radical (and former Gitmo-detainee) Moazzam Begg.

Whatever we may think about Islamists like Begg, at least he believes in something, even if it’s the wrong thing. Amnesty only dropped their pact with Begg and his organization last year, and it took one hell of a lot of shame to make them finally do it. They have yet to apologize for all the jihad-kissing.

But back to the story…

This should be familiar to those who’ve paid close attention: A few soldiers treat their prisoners badly, and America’s critics (like the jihad-kissers) try to pretend that it must be a deliberate policy of the U.S. government.

 

As if soldiers never go astray on their own. It simply has to be part of a government coverup. (Hey, I’m sure it brings in those donations from idiots with more money than brains.)

Let’s face it, with well over a million men and women deployed, it’s no surprise that some small number will commit crimes. This is one of the reasons the U.S. military has its own CID and NCIS criminal investigative services — which is probably where some of those very pictures came from. The military cares about human rights much more than its critics do.

As this article shows, ACLU lawyer Alex Abdo wants you to believe there’s something more sinister here:

In releasing the photos, the Defense Department points to the punishment of a handful of low-level soldiers, but the scandal is that no senior official has been held accountable or even investigated for the systemic abuse of detainees.

What the photos that the government has suppressed would show is that abuse was so widespread that it could only have resulted from policy or a climate calculated to foster abuse.

That’s right: To the high-and-mighty ACLU lawyers, soldiers are either heathens or robots. They have no responsibility for their own conduct.

I dealt with this in Sniveling. It happens over and over again: Troops get caught committing crimes, or even just being rough with a difficult savage, and then critics try to pretend it is somehow related to an interrogation policy. Recall that CBS News could never have gotten those infamous Abu Ghraib photos if the U.S. Army hadn’t prosecuted the very soldiers who went astray.

I can’t speak of these specific cases, but what we know from the others, most incidents like this involved ordinary criminals or low-level enemy fighters. The military orders and rules of engagement are on record. They can be seen by the defense lawyers in these legal cases, and are subject to Congressional oversight by both parties.

Our troops need more defenders from these jihad-supporting lawyers.

Let’s pause to recognize these situations for what they are. Soldiers need to go from handling detainees to fighting complete savages, and then switch back to handling them as protected detainees again while being on guard for the next outburst. This can be really tough work.

War isn’t like working at the Wendy’s drive-thru lane. A cashier may be tempted to respond in kind to a foul-mouthed customer, and when pushed sufficiently, it could be understandable if the cashier’s own language gets out of line. And yet this isn’t a life-or-death situation. Bad language is as far as an excessive response should be expected to go.

But when jihadi prisoners get violent, a reasonable response is also going to be violent. There surely could be an excessive response, but it needs to be measured against what a reasonable response might be. Only a fool or a liar would suggest that bruises are proof of guilt during a war against savages.

Even some excessive responses, while legally actionable, might at least be understandable.

I’m not talking about the few crimes against innocents. Those happened, too. (As I said, we had over one million troops deployed.) But such things happened in WWII as well. We don’t pretend the Roosevelt administration was to blame for that.

In more understandable cases, there was undoubtedly some frustration at having to watch good men die, only to have their killers treated as victims. Their advocates are even lauded as human rights heroes by groups like Amnesty.

No, I’m not saying that they shouldn’t be prosecuted. It’s clearly illegal for soldiers to take out their anger on vicious detainees. But it should be understandable to any real human being.

It should also be understandable to the twerps at the ACLU and Amnesty. They’re always quick to blame ex-detainees rejoining the jihad out of “revenge” for having their beards shaved off in Guantanamo. But, frankly, I don’t think they care.

I’ve already talked about Amnesty. As for the ACLU, if they cared about torture, would they really have brought in Oliver Stone? That link putting down the U.S. for so-called “torture” was from the same period as Stone’s bonding with Venezuela strongman Hugo Chavez.

Chavez took billions from his people, and there’s no telling how much he had to let his henchmen take. Chavez’s own daughter is said to be worth four billion. But Venezuela is now a shambles for its people, now waiting in bread lines.

Oliver Stone moved on and is now supporting Vladimir Putin. I don’t doubt that the ACLU would be willing to work with Stone again. He can bring in the money from their idiot donors, and that makes him okay with them.

Advertisements