So you wanna be part of the gang?

[muckefuck]

Since someone actually made the "no worse than a fraternity hazing" argument in a response in this journal, this entry I posted elsewhere is relevant here as well. (Original context in tbearpsy's journal. [WARNING! Entry contains pics from Abu Ghraib.])

I think the "no worse than a fraternity hazing" arguments are really off base. They only consider the physical acts completely divorced from their psychological context. First of all, hazings are voluntary; if you don't want to go through one, don't join a society that organises them. Second, why does someone choose to undergo a hazing? To become a full member of a group. They satisfy a deep craving to belong to something.

The abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib was intended to have precisely the opposite effect. Undergoing it didn't make the Iraqis PiKEs or lacrosse team members; it only made them more outcast. Even if no one they care about saw the pictures, they know deep down they were forced to perform humiliating acts while being powerless to stop them. Can you imagine how damaging that must be? It's less like a hazing than a gay-bashing.

There is a line at murder, though; unfortunately, it's been hinted that the newest revelations include accusations of rape and murder. A lot more people will need to be brought to justice before we can close this ignonimous chapter of the occupation.

Comments

[snowy-owlet.livejournal.com]

I can't believe anyone would be so boneheaded as to make that argument.

[prilicla.livejournal.com]

No kidding. I'm no fan of fraternity hazings--when my brother-in-law told me some of the things that went on at his "nice" fraternity, I was shocked that anyone would put up with it--but the context, as muckefuck points out, is completely different.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

I think you may be able to suspend disbelief at least for Rush Limbaugh. If what you're saying is that you can believe anyone belonging to the selecti quidem who read this journal would be so bonehead, well, I'm flattered--in the literal sense; it's undeserved praise.

[lhn.livejournal.com]

I think you may be able to suspend disbelief at least for Rush Limbaugh.

I was actually surprised and disappointed that Limbaugh did so. It's been many years since I've listened to his show, but I honestly wouldn't have expected him to defend or endorse torture. (Especially since the conservative bloggers I read regularly were as one in calling for court martials, long prison terms, and a thorough house cleaning, though they're divided on whether Rumsfeld should resign or not.)

[snowy-owlet.livejournal.com]

I agree.

[gopower.livejournal.com]

Limbaugh neither defended nor endorsed such abuses. His show was full of all the usual condemnations, call for prosecution, etc. Those comments addressed only the media overkill on the story, especially since the media was not reporting on the abuses happening, they were reporting on the abuses being prosecuted. The only "scoop" was getting access to the photos that were being used to prepare courtmartials.

Abu Ghraib scandal

[innerdoggie.livejournal.com]

The people making those comments seem to be unclear on the concept of consensual vs. non-consensual sex.