Saturday, January 31, 2004

the human rights case for invading

I was just reading a Whiskey Bar blog entry about the human rights case for invading Iraq.

After talking about and quoting from a report from the organization Human Rights Watch Billmon goes on to quote from a relief worker's account. Immediately appended to this account is an anonymous email from someone who claims to be a soldier under the command of a Colonel Sassaman (who says things like, "You need to understand that these people are Muslim, and their values are just different from Judeo-Christian values. They aren't for doing things for other people like we are; they're only out for themselves."). After assuring Billmon he is no Republican (thus the anonymity?) the correspondent goes on to cast aspersions on the account of the relief worker, toeing a line that seems not the slightest bit at variance from the approved govt line. Ah yes. Straight talk. From the horse's mouth an' all.

I posted this in Billmon's comments thread:
"The thing about Arkhangel: why the anonymity? It's not like he's saying anything with which his commander would find fault.

But, backhandedly, it does remind us the consequences of actually saying something with which the command could find fault.

Is pretending to say something critical (while in practice reinforcing the official position) also risky to one's career?"

No comments: