What about MI Sodomy allegations at Abu Ghraib?

[carl_pwccaman]

Military Intelligence encouraged tough treatment of inmates at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. There were allegations that glow sticks and thermometers were broken off in inmates' anuses, on purpose, and that young men who were imprisoned, were threatened with anal rape.

That the right wing ignored such blatant pro-sodomy abuses in the Military, is proof of their hypocrisy, lack of morality, and relativism.

I've been wondering for a couple years now why more on the Left don't call them on precisely that. In (Against) Political Identity I speculated that it might have something to do with the confusions and compromises involved with political identifications and alliances in the first place.

It also seems that there is general cultural confusion about boundaries, a sort of torture and sadism culture, on the left right and center, from Mel Gibson's Passion to Rob Zombie's House of 1000 Corpses. I questioned that in Demolishing and Afflicting Boundaries.

But maybe the truth boils down to what Underground Panther wrote in Child Abuse, Gullibility, and...

Your serious consideration is welcome. Flippant sloganeers need not apply.

[benburch]

1. I think we are afraid to call them on it for fear of it being spun.

We do this, and we are attacking "all of the brave men and women who have honorably served in Iraq", or at least that is the mealy-mouthed spin that will reliably be put on it.

We're just not good at playing the Right's game of hammer and tongs political attack, and so avoid confrontations that appear as though they will be painful in advance.

I think we need to get a spine and call them on their reaction to it as you suggest, and call the President on his cover-up of the photos of what was done.

[carl_pwccaman]

3. Why not turn the tables on them, then?

Why not respond with the retort: how dare you support homosexual rape in the military, while focusing all your hypocritical moralism on gay marriage.

[UncleSepp]

5. Because there's nothing homosexual about male on male rape.

Rape of anyone by anyone else is about power. Rape of a man by a man is generally done as a way to exert power, and more often by straight men than by gay men.

To connect male on male rape of prisoners by their captors to homosexuality will only reinforce the image among the "moral" you hope to reach of gay men as rapists. It will lead to gay bashing, not justice.

[carl_pwccaman]

6. But there's a different way to turn the tables on them.

I was referring to their claim to morality and their concern about sexual morality.

I agree with you that it is important to be careful to distinguish between abuse of power (which is what rape is about) and either homosexuality, bisexuality, or heterosexuality.

They claim to be so concerned about the moral fiber of the country, about gays in the military, about gay marriage, but they are not so concerned about the abuse of power that involves sexual abuse, even when it is man-on-man.

That is a glaring contradiction and hypocrisy that should be used against them.

Failing to vehemently oppose torture, simply because you want gay marriage rights or something like that, is a moral failure, too, by the way.

Torture is a far greater evil than the laws against gay marriage. I don't expect narrow-minded ideologues to understand that, but I do expect good democrats who are fighting for civil and human rights, to understand it.

[snot]

2. Cf. Pynchon's portrayal of Nazi officials in "Gravity's Rainbow".

On the one hand, persecuting deviants; on the other, v. into S&M.

(Pynchon was equally on point in his portrayal of the relationship between WWII warmaking and the financial welfare of large corporations.)

Other DU'ers have noted that there seem to be an unusually high percentage of conservative officials who turn out to be indulging in some kind sexual conduct that they publicly condemn.

[carl_pwccaman]

4. But the right is able to say things are deviant and perverse...

Why can't the left remind the right when the right is deviant and perverse, in clear and unequivocable terms?

[Lars39]

7. Gannon and his specialty is pertinent in some way also.