Joseph Darby, the soldier who slipped the disk containing the Abu Ghraib photos under the door of the Army's Criminal Investigation Division, setting in motion the process that brought the torture to light, is in protective custody. You can read the story of how what he did affected his life and that of his wife Bernadette here. (via LeanLeft, via Digby.) A sample:
"That was the real hell of it. The media blitz was bad, but at least it was in their faces. You could see it coming and knew what to expect, which was a total disregard for privacy. It was bad but predictable. By contrast, the rest of the community, from the cops to the checkout clerk at the grocery, had become a terrifying mystery. There was no way of knowing where anyone stood, how they felt, or what they might do. Forget about the families of Joe's unit. Bernadette knew they would hate her, but there were only so many of them. It was everyone else she was worried about. There were thousands of people in this stretch of valley, and she had lived here for most of her life. She knew some of them wouldn't support Joe. They wouldn't feel any sympathy for the Iraqis in those pictures, and they would consider Joe a traitor for blowing the whistle. Bernadette could see that coming. But the question was, how many were there? And which ones would they be?Each day, she would catch another snippet of the hostility brewing around her. There was the candlelight vigil in Cumberland, Maryland, to show support for the disgraced soldiers, including the ones who did the torturing, about a hundred supporters standing in the pounding rain, as if beating and sodomizing prisoners were some kind of patriotic duty. Or the 200 people who gathered one night in Hyndman, Pennsylvania, waving American flags to honor Sivits, the first soldier tried in the scandal. They posted a sign in Hyndman. It said JEREMY SIVITS, OUR HOMETOWN HERO. And the mayor told reporters that even though Sivits would sometimes do "a little devilish thing," on the whole he was "a wonderful kid."
Where were the signs for Joe? Bernadette had to wonder. Where was his vigil? Where was his happy mayor? Where were his calls of support? Down at the gas station, Clay overheard some guys say that Joe was "walking around with a bull's-eye on his head," just casually, just like, oh, everybody knows Joe's dead. Some of Bernadette's family even let her know that other members of the family were against her now, that they couldn't support a traitor. The more Bernadette heard, the more paranoid she became. How serious was this? Her nerves were so fried from the media onslaught that she couldn't be sure what was serious and what was just talk. Had those cops really ignored Maxine because they were against Joe? And if so, what else would they ignore?
Bernadette felt unhinged. As days passed, she began to cry more often and to beg God for help, praying that Joe would come home or at least call again. She felt like she was sinking, this young woman who had been so vibrant and fiery just days before, now collapsing inside. She would dream of herself in a desert at night, hunting feverishly for water. She began to have trouble putting on her clothes, and her sisters would have to help. She wondered about shadows in the street and the things that might be in them. She began to fantasize about the hospital and what it would be like to go there, safe and away from everything."
Heroism is doing what's right even when it's unpopular or dangerous or both. Joseph Darby is a hero. He deserves a hero's welcome. Possibly this is what a hero's welcome is these days: you do the right thing and then people talk about the bulls-eye on your head and you and your wife are taken into protective custody. I would like to think that my country is better than that, but sometimes I wonder.
It is inconsistent with loving our country to threaten people who have done what they think is right, even if we disagree with them. Loving our country involves loving our system of government, and the rule of law is central to that system. When someone threatens a person who has broken no law, he or she is not a patriot who has gotten a little carried away, but someone who rejects one of the things this country is all about. And when a person threatens not just someone he or she disagrees with, but someone who has plainly risked a lot to do the right thing, and threatens him precisely because he took that risk, that person has crossed almost every line I recognize and fallen into a moral abyss. And we need to call both those who actually threaten people and those who just talk casually about bulls-eyes on it.
I think this is a task for conservatives just now. I want to be clear about this: I do not think that there is any connection between conservatism and violence. And of course I don't think that anyone who is likely to be reading this blog has any sympathy with these people. I think that where the people who threaten other people, or who talk casually about violence, tend to congregate is largely a matter of chance, and that it changes over time. In the late 60s and 70s, they were more likely to be on the left (excepting those who engaged in racially motivated violence, which is a different matter.) If they were on my side, I would confront them, recognizing that as a leftist I would be harder for them to dismiss; I have in fact done this, though not in this country. (I very much hope that I'm the only person here who has actually spent several weeks trying to convince people who were sympathetic to a really dreadful and violent leftist organization that they should adopt Gandhian tactics.) But for reasons which, again, I take to be coincidental, I think there are more of those people on the right just now, and I am exactly the sort of person they would dismiss out of hand. But those of us who do have credibility with them need to do something, so that Joseph Darby can come home.
Somehow, I'm unsurprised. When Republicans actually claim that that one of the things they hold against John Kerry is that he publicly spoke out about US war crimes in Vietnam, what chance does Joseph Derby have?
Hilzoy, if you can think of anything we can do to support Derby, I'm all for it.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | August 17, 2004 at 08:06 AM
When bullies like this come in a crowd, they're harder to stand up against. But if the rule of law is to mean a damn thing, then stand we must.
Lex
Republican since 1978
Posted by: Lex | August 17, 2004 at 11:46 AM
It saddens but does not surprise me. This is exactly what I predicted when the entire matter became public. Whistle-blowers do not prosper. We might wish it otherwise but it ain't.
Posted by: Dave Schuler | August 17, 2004 at 11:54 AM
When Republicans actually claim that that one of the things they hold against John Kerry is that he publicly spoke out about US war crimes in Vietnam, what chance does Joseph Derby have?
When that happens, yes, it'll be tragic. Currently, though, the objection is not that he spoke up, but rather that he did quite a bit of...inventing. Now, if it turned out that these atrocities were committed in Cambodia on Christmas day, that'd explain quite a bit.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 17, 2004 at 12:51 PM
When that happens, yes, it'll be tragic.
It has been happening, Slart.
Currently, though, the objection is not that he spoke up, but rather that he did quite a bit of...inventing.
I think you'll need to clarify that, Slart. It sounds rather too much like you're claiming John Kerry "invented" the war crimes he spoke out about. Which would make you part of the tragedy, wouldn't it?
I repeat, Hilzoy: Joseph Darby's behavior should be publicly rewarded. Thirty years down the line, if he's running for office, let's not have his political opponents accusing him of "ratting out his buddies" as Republicans now accuse John Kerry.
As for Kerry in Cambodia - Kevin Drum already pointed out the problems with that piece of Republican trumpery masquerading as informed criticism.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | August 17, 2004 at 04:02 PM
Kevin Drum...wasn't he the one beating the Bush/AWOL drum? What, I'm supposed to take him seriously?
But, assuming I am:
Who corroborates Kerry's story? Anyone? Is there any reason whatever to believe that covert ops dropoffs would be done by a 50-foot coastal patrol craft? Really, the idea that you'd do insertion missions on a boat that's 13 feet WIDE, for crying out loud, and draws about 4 feet of water, and has about 1000 horsepower of supercharged diesel in the engine room...it just defies reason.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 17, 2004 at 04:25 PM
Kevin Drum...wasn't he the one beating the Bush/AWOL drum? What, I'm supposed to take him seriously?
And once again, I ask: for those who dismiss the Bush/AWOL story out of hand, why? Have you looked at the recent analysis (particularly that of Paul Lukasiak, although I think some new stuff may appear at the AWOL Bush project) on the document dump and, if so, wherein lies the flaw?
Let me be clear: many of the people involved in the AWOL Bush project have heavy axes to grind. Most of their analysis will be heavily tainted by partisanship. All that said, I haven't yet seen a convincing disputation of the facts that have been uncovered, nor of the central contentions. I'm not saying that one doesn't exist and, indeed, by now my curiosity is pretty much academic; I'd just like to know the truth so we can put this damn thing to bed once and for all.
Posted by: Anarch | August 17, 2004 at 04:49 PM
"(I very much hope that I'm the only person here who has actually spent several weeks trying to convince people who were sympathetic to a really dreadful and violent leftist organization that they should adopt Gandhian tactics.)"
Nope. Not if you count the Revolutionary Communist Party, at least.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 17, 2004 at 04:49 PM
"Hilzoy, if you can think of anything we can do to support Derby, I'm all for it."
It's an extremely miniscule step, but I'd start with getting his name right.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 17, 2004 at 04:51 PM
"Currently, though, the objection is not that he spoke up, but rather that he did quite a bit of...inventing."
Slart, are you maintaining that Kerry hasn't been hated by a significant portion of the right since 1971 because of his testimony before Congress, anti-war speeches, and involvement with the Vietnam Veterans Against The War? That he hasn't been called "a borderline traitor" for that about a gazillion times?
Because I can give you a gazillion such quotes, including comments made to my own blog. Could you clarify, please?
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 17, 2004 at 04:55 PM
Slart, are you maintaining that Kerry hasn't been hated by a significant portion of the right since 1971 because of his testimony before Congress, anti-war speeches, and involvement with the Vietnam Veterans Against The War? That he hasn't been called "a borderline traitor" for that about a gazillion times?
I have no idea where this came from, Gary, or what it has to do with this discussion.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 17, 2004 at 04:56 PM
Nope. Not if you count the Revolutionary Communist Party, at least.
I've spent a couple hours taunting the local Stalinists. Does that count?
Posted by: Anarch | August 17, 2004 at 05:01 PM
And once again, I ask: for those who dismiss the Bush/AWOL story out of hand, why?
1) Lack of anything resembling conclusive evidence that Bush was AWOL.
2) Lack of any sort of evidence that Bush failed to complete his service.
3) Lack of even rudimentary organizational skills of whatever evidence they do have, and
4) Lack of any displayed ability to form a coherent argument.
If the Bush/AWOL case were on anything resembling solid ground, it'd be...convincing, would it not? I haven't seen much to convince me that they even understand what AWOL means in the context of TANG, never mind that Bush was AWOL.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 17, 2004 at 05:02 PM
Can I take it from your response that you have not, in fact, examined Paul Lukasiak's latest? It may well have flaws -- among other things, it's ugly as hell -- but a lack of organizational skills or the inability to form a coherent argument do not appear to be amongst them.
Again, the usual disclaimer: a lot of people pushing this story are not worthy of your time. That doesn't preclude particular individuals having produced something of merit; and in this specific instance, I'm curious to hear people's rebuttals.
Posted by: Anarch | August 17, 2004 at 05:12 PM
"Is there any reason whatever to believe that covert ops dropoffs would be done by a 50-foot coastal patrol craft?"
Well, there's history and endless documentation, for one.
"Really, the idea that you'd do insertion missions on a boat that's 13 feet WIDE, for crying out loud, and draws about 4 feet of water, and has about 1000 horsepower of supercharged diesel in the engine room...it just defies reason."
I don't know why. But, let reason be defied.
Even today:
And the most modern: Then there's the Swift Boat Vets own history: Mind-blowing, this defying of reason, isn't it? :-)Posted by: Gary Farber | August 17, 2004 at 05:44 PM
"I have no idea where this came from, Gary, or what it has to do with this discussion."
Um, well, Jes said:
You responded to him saying: I pointed out that it has been the main objection to John Kerry by innumerable people for more than thirty years. That's what it has to do with the conversation.So I repeat the question: Slart, are you maintaining that Kerry hasn't been hated by a significant portion of the right since 1971 because of his testimony before Congress, anti-war speeches, and involvement with the Vietnam Veterans Against The War? That he hasn't been called "a borderline traitor" for that about a gazillion times?
If not, what on earth did you mean by "When that happens, yes, it'll be tragic. Currently, though, the objection is not that he spoke up...."?
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 17, 2004 at 05:49 PM
I pointed out that it has been the main objection to John Kerry by innumerable people for more than thirty years. That's what it has to do with the conversation.
In order for it to be relevant, it'd have to be Republicans, Gary. After all, Jesurgislac's statement went like this:
Seems like the claims would have to be made in a partisan fashion, by Republicans.
If not, what on earth did you mean by "When that happens, yes, it'll be tragic. Currently, though, the objection is not that he spoke up...."?
I believe the bone of contention is that he fabricated. Or do you know of some that admit to the crimes, and are simply upset that he ratted them out?
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 17, 2004 at 10:30 PM
Regarding your earlier comments, Gary, I had composed a lengthy discussion of the other boats you'd linked to references of, but Explorer ate it. For this try, I'm simply going to suggest that you read your own links, and note this time that the craft in question carry what are in effect inflatables for the actual insertion.
As for the rest, I'm going to have to admit to making an incomplete claim, and that my previous scoffing at using Swift boats for insertion ought to have included some mention of using them for insertion far upstream, which is where one would find Cambodia. The discussion of the Swift-boat-aided insertion you link to is very close to the wreckage of PCF 43, which is only about 5 km inland from the mouth of the Rach Duong Keo. Far closer, you must admit, to the coast than to Cambodia.
Which brings us to another point, which is why Coastal Division 13 would be tasked to do a job that an existing outfit is explicitly equipped to perform; said outfit already having the assigned task of patrolling rivers-hence the name: River Patrol Force.
All this is just buttressing, though. His commanding officer says he was never there; if that's not good enough for you I'm not sure what would be. The fact that his commanding officer is part of Swiftvets surely will come to rise, but I've not seen anything compelling that says it either poisons or puts extra shine on his testimony.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 18, 2004 at 12:12 AM
"In order for it to be relevant, it'd have to be Republicans, Gary."
They generally have been, though not universally.
"I believe the bone of contention is that he fabricated. Or do you know of some that admit to the crimes, and are simply upset that he ratted them out?"
No. I believe "accusation" might be the word you want.
The fact is that, of course, Kerry has said for a long time that he regrets some of the language he used back then.
I don't know how old you are, Slarti, so I don't know if you remember those times yourself; they were a heck of a lot more heated than today's minor political arguments, and to many on both sides it seemed as if the country was on the verge of revolution. People tended to say heated things.
Were there atrocities committed by Americans in Vietnam? Of course. Were all Americans involved? Of course not. How widespread were they? A bit hard to say. Kerry likely over-stated back then. People who are in complete or major denial nowadays that there were atrocities are equally, if not more, given to over-statement.
Myself, I don't think any of it is terrible relevant to who would have good policies in 2005, any more than the fact that George Bush was a drunken sot who never did anything of worth until age 40 (and still never did anything of worth until being elected governor that wasn't failing business his father's friends gave him, until he was given the gift of making money from the Rangers ball team, and the stadium he and his partners got the citizens of Arlington to pay $130 million for, is relevant. We're electing a president to do things in the future, not the past.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 18, 2004 at 01:50 AM
I believe "accusation" might be the word you want.
I obviously didn't think so, but we can go with that. If it was a justified accusation, the anger would be that he exposed them; if unjustified it would be because he lied. I can't think of a third option, can you?
People who are in complete or major denial nowadays that there were atrocities are equally, if not more, given to over-statement.
I think the whole point was few (if any) Kerry actually served with supports his claims made in the Winter Soldier investigation. I don't think anyone's saying that no atrocities were ever committed, just that they didn't occur in anywhere near the nearly-universal fashion Kerry described.
We're electing a president to do things in the future, not the past.
Which would be fine with me, but Kerry's constant bringing-up of his time in Vietnam pretty much invites close inspection to see just how well he did there. I think close inspection of his time in the Senate might be warranted as well, but for some reason this doesn't seem held up as one of his strengths. And I don't know about for you, but for me the future's at least temporarily unavailable for examination.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 18, 2004 at 08:41 AM