Both of these reports shift the dynamics of this in the direction the political leadership didn't want it to go, but where it needed to go: how the lines of authority and the political culture contributed to the torture of prisoners by American soldiers at Saddam Hussein's most notorious torture facility. Getting at the nub of this problem is an issue of not only the commissive acts of military officers through their orders, but also the omissive acts of the political leadership and military command structure that sowed the seeds of permissible torture, and then was unable to communicate what it meant and why, and was also unable to have officers that were able to properly oversee their commands. Now they reap.
Most importantly, the "few bad apples" gambit has failed.
For example:
In a [May 24] speech at the Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, President George W Bush announces: "A new Iraq will also need a humane, well-supervised prison system. Under the dictator, prisons like Abu Ghraib were symbols of death and torture. That same prison became a symbol of disgraceful conduct by a few American troops who dishonored our country and disregarded our values.
But the obtuse bureaucratic efficiency the ruled the day was what made re-opening Abu Ghraib seem a reasonable policy. When the world learned of all this the reaction was shock and disgust, then the question immediately leapt to mind, "Why would Americans, who premised their deposal of Hussein on his abusiveness, then employ the most visible symbol of his regime?"
After that, we wondered, "Were these soldiers so ignorant of the immediate past that they were unable to draw the logical parallel between themselves and Saddam Hussein?" Since they were also dumb enough to chronicle their efforts by photograph and video, the answer is self-evident (in late May Rumsfeld banned the use of cameras in prisons).
So, beyond whether or not Rumsfeld should resign (you'd think the most basic tenets of ministerial accountability and duty would serve up an answer), what about those "few bad apples"?
It helps to have a reminder of their exploits: 
That's actually the least disturbing photo I could find.
Staff Sergeant Ivan Frederick has perhaps reacquired a shred of his honor, in his clear, explicit shouldering of the moral responsibility for his actions, while pleading guilty to several charges:
"I have accepted responsibility for my actions at Abu Ghraib prison. I will be pleading guilty to certain charges because I have concluded that what I did was a violation of law.
"I am hopeful that all those within the Army who contributed to or participated in the chaos that was Abu Ghraib will also come forward and accept responsibility.
"Lastly, I am concerned for the well being of Specialist Darby and his family. I just learned that he was placed in protective custody because of threats against him. To all who have supported me, I want you to know that I have no bad feelings towards Specialist Darby and neither should you. He did what he thought was right, and it was right. I ask you to accept that and move on."
A far cry from Rush Limbaugh's, "This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation." The threats against Specialist Joseph Darby and his family have compounded the moral tragedy of this, reflecting even further on our society as a whole and its tradition of moral groupthink.
But just as importantly the reappearance of the "just following orders" defense is unconscionable, which makes Sgt. Frederick's legal admission and his public statement so significant, as he acknowledges his own moral agency:
As a group, the accused soldiers contend that higher ups, specifically officers in Army Military Intelligence, ordered them to "soften up" the Iraqi prisoners for interrogation, that the members of Maryland's 372nd Military Police Company, were simply following orders.
The evident pleasure of the torturers invalidate this defense, and the sadistic nature of this pleasure is obvious through the torturers' own documentation. In fact, especially looking at the "pyramid" photo above, the parallels between the imaginations at work there with the geometric scenarios of Sade's The 120 Days of Sodom are startling. There was an undeniable and zestfully calculative element to the torture games here, and goes beyond the run-of-the mill sadist. Imagination and intentionality glare from the Abu Ghraib photos. The photos and their subjects weren't "taken" so much as "directed," something Sade himself would have immediately recognized. The implications of this for our nation's ethics as a whole are legion. The defense of dutifulness will not suffice, which reminds me of the Henry V line:
Every subject's duty is the king's; but every subject's
soul is his own.(Act IV, scene 1)
