The Virginia Military Institute: Training Tomorrow's Sociopaths Today!

I must confess to being somewhat disappointed at the lack of attention paid to the recent demi-scandal out of the Virginia Military Institute (VMI). Apparently, some photos surfaced of VMI cadets at a Halloween party in costumes that included Nazi soldiers, a "fag sailor" complete with condoms in his cap and a bullseye on his rear, and a cadet in blackface, sucking in his stomach (he's a "starving African", get it?) . These photos and the attitudes they depict garnered scant attention from the mainstream media and really only a passing mention in the blogosphere, but I think they deserve some genuine scrutiny, especially since these young men are training for future careers in the US military.

Before going any further, let me state clearly that I am not looking to demonize VMI (which has posted a press release, promising an investigation of the circumstances behind the photos), or even the young men in question. My concern comes from the line I see leading from these pictures to another set of photos widely available on the net. Its almost a timeline pointing toward the kinds of people these young men may become if they do in fact go on to become our future military leaders.


As a sometime student of war, war crimes, and their underlying causes, I was taught early on that a key component of torture and degradation is the accepted de-humanization of the enemy. Turning our enemies into something less-than-human is seen by many as an integral part of military indoctrination. Turning people into monsters gives our soldiers the psychological free pass they need to be more able to kill, to take life. The Vietnamese were gooks, the Japanese were tojos, and now the Iraqis are ragheads, or sand-niggers. In the biggest red-flag I have seen in my short lifetime, the cadets in these photos are demonstrating a wholehearted embrace of the concept of dehumanization. In fact, they are celebrating it.



Now, is it such a leap to see these young men, reveling in bigotry, growing into the men depicted below, tormenting their less-than-human captives?



The lesson we must learn is that a culture of bigotry is the breeding ground for the Charles Graner's of the world. The all too willing perpetrators of the degradations of Abu Ghraib no doubt started out not unlike the smiling young men at that fateful Halloween party at VMI. Take a second to think about it and surely you'll agree that photos like the ones at the top of this page pave the way for the photos at the bottom.

Inauguration Lifestyles of the Rich and Heartless

Brought to us by the American Progress Action Fund

Due to $17 million worth of inaugural security – paid for by the city of Washington, D.C. – the Progress Report is unable to access its office. Never fear – it takes a lot more than that to keep us down. We put this list together for you ahead of time. Your regularly scheduled Progress Report returns tomorrow.

A look at this week's festivities by the numbers:

• $40 million: Cost of Bush inaugural ball festivities, not counting security costs.
  
  
• $2,000: Amount FDR spent on the inaugural in 1945…about $20,000 in today's dollars.
  
  
• $20,000: Cost of yellow roses purchased for inaugural festivities by D.C.'s Ritz Carlton.
  
  
• 200: Number of Humvees outfitted with top-of-the-line armor for troops in Iraq that could have been purchased with the amount of money blown on the inauguration.
  
  
• $10,000: Price of an inaugural package at the Fairmont Hotel, which includes a Beluga caviar and Dom Perignon reception, a chauffeured Rolls Royce and two actors posing as "faux" Secret Service agents, complete with black sunglasses and cufflink walkie-talkies.
  
  
• 400: Pounds of lobster provided for "inaugural feeding frenzy" at the exclusive Mandarin Oriental hotel.
  
  
• 3,000: Number of "Laura Bush Cowboy cookies" provided for "inaugural feeding frenzy" at the Mandarin hotel.
  
  
• $1: Amount per guest President Carter spent on snacks for guests at his inaugural parties. To stick to a tight budget, he served pretzels, peanuts, crackers and cheese and had cash bars.
  
  
• 22 million: Number of children in regions devastated by the tsunami who could have received vaccinations and preventive health care with the amount of money spent on the inauguration.
  
  
• 1,160,000: Number of girls who could be sent to school for a year in Afghanistan with the amount of money lavished on the inauguration.
  
  
• $15,000: The down payment to rent a fur coat paid by one gala attendee who didn't want the hassle of schlepping her own through the airport.
  
  
• $200,500: Price of a room package at D.C.'s Mandarin Oriental, including presidential suite, chauffeured Mercedes limo and outfits from Neiman Marcus.
  
  
• 2,500: Number of U.S. troops used to stand guard as President Bush takes his oath of office
  
  
• 26,000: Number of Kevlar vests for U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan that could be purchased for $40 million.
  
  
• $290: Bonus that could go to each American solider serving in Iraq, if inauguration funds were used for that purpose.
  
  
• $6.3 million: Amount contributed by the finance and investment industry, which works out to be 25 percent of all the money collected.
  
  
• $17 million: Amount of money the White House is forcing the cash-strapped city of Washington, D.C., to pony up for inauguration security.
  
  
• 9: Percentage of D.C. residents who voted for Bush in 2004.
  
  
• 66: Percentage of Americans who think this over-the-top inauguration should have been scaled back.
  

Gonzales Fails on Torture Questions

January 7, 2005

Attorney General-nominee Alberto Gonzales failed yesterday to assure Americans that he has the necessary moral and legal judgment to serve as the nation's highest law enforcement officer. Given repeated opportunities to disavow his past support for torture, Gonzales refused to state categorically that under no circumstance is the President of the United States ever authorized to use torture in violation of U.S. and international law. In fact, his twisted answers left open the possibility of immunity for those who commit these horrible acts of violence that put our soldiers and citizens at risk for similar treatment. Alberto Gonzales is not worthy of serving as the nation's Attorney General.

• Gonzales believes the president has the right to authorize torture in violation of U.S. law and international treaty obligations.
• Gonzales repeatedly dodged questions about whether he believes the president has the power disregard U.S. law and order torture. Pressed to answer, he finally admitted: "I guess I would have to say that hypothetically that authority may exist." Asked whether U.S. personnel could engage in torture under "any circumstances," he stated, "I don't believe so, but I'd want to get back to you on that."
• Gonzales refused to condemn acts of torture. In July 2002, Gonzales held a secret meeting to discuss just how far the U.S. could go in interrogating suspects. The discussion included acts like "waterboarding," or making a suspect think he's drowning, and mock burials. During the hearing yesterday, Gonzales was given the opportunity to stand up and publicly denounce torture techniques. Instead, he demurred, saying only, "it is not my job" to decide if these practices were okay.
  

Senators should strongly oppose the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General. The appointment of Gonzales as Attorney General tells the world that Americans believe they have a right to perform the most despicable acts of torture. As Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said, the White House "dramatically undermined the war effort" by "getting cute with the law," charging, "I think you weaken yourself as a nation when you try to play cute and become more like your enemy instead of like who you want to be." Gonzales' refusal to either take responsibility for these positions or renounce them is a grave disservice to America's honor and integrity.

Gonzales is unfit to serve as the nation's highest law enforcement officer.