[ OUR OPINION ]
Military integrity
survives Iraq abuseTHOSE whose image of the American soldier has been shaken by the abuses at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison need only look at Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba to restore their confidence. Taguba's appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee was the epitome of military integrity. As he said in his opening statement to the committee, "Bottom line, we will follow our conscience and do what is morally right."
THE ISSUE
Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba testified that military police at Abu Ghraib prison were under the command of an intelligence unit.
Taguba was born in the Philippines in 1950, the son of a sergeant in the Philippine Scouts who escaped from Japanese custody and then spent three years spying on Japanese troop movements for U.S. forces. His father finally received a Bronze Star and a Prisoner of War medal two years ago. Taguba was 11 when the family moved to Hawaii, which he told AsianWeek "opened my mind to the capabilities and opportunities in America. The diversity gave me a wide range to seek opportunities and to relate to other people."
The world spotlight turned to Taguba when his scathing report on the abuse of Iraq prisoners by U.S. military police became public. He told the Senate committee on Tuesday that his investigation had uncovered evidence that guards had collaborated with military intelligence interrogators who were "influencing their action to set the conditions for successful interrogation."
He said an order last November had put prison guards under the command of the intelligence unit at the facility. Stephen A. Cambone, the under secretary of defense for intelligence, disagreed, testifying that the order had put the intelligence unit in charge of the facility but not of the prison guards.
When Sen. Carl Levin asked Taguba if he wanted to stick to his testimony in light of his boss' contradiction, Taguba replied, "Yes, sir."
At another point, both Cambone and Taguba were asked how such abuse by guards could have happened. Cambone replied, "With the caveat, sir, that I don't know the facts, it's, for me, hard to explain."
Taguba's response: "Failure in leadership, sir, from the brigade commander on down. Lack of discipline, no training whatsoever and no supervision. Supervisory omission was rampant." Such forthrightness is what General Taguba and other top soldiers regard as the bottom line.
BACK TO TOP |
Hip-hop on smokes?
That’s just not KoolIN ATTEMPTS to shield impressionable teenagers from images thought to encourage smoking, the U.S. Senate and 31 states, including Hawaii, are moving on two fronts. The states are on target, but the Senate misses the mark.
THE ISSUE
A cigarette maker has been warned about a lawsuit over its hip-hop ad campaign while the U.S. Senate wants fewer smokers in movies.
On behalf of Hawaii and others, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer warned Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. that it faces a lawsuit because of its packaging and advertising of Kool cigarettes with emblems of hip-hop, a genre attractive to young people.
The company's denial that its campaign was not meant to appeal to teenagers rings hollow since it acknowledged that the promotions were aimed at those who like that kind of music.
The cigarette maker then pulled from distribution the cigarette packs, which featured rappers, dancers and deejays, and quit running magazine ads about a related deejay contest. The quick retreat indicates the company knew it was tiptoeing on dangerous ground.
Brown & Williamson, like other tobacco companies that agreed to a $206 billion smoking-related settlement in 1998, is barred from aiming its marketing at teenagers. The settlement requires companies be given a month's notice before a suit is filed.
Whether Hawaii and other states will pursue the matter is yet to be decided, but it appears the notification alone was enough to deter the company, at least for the time being.
Meanwhile, the Senate is treading on the First Amendment, with some members trying to insist that the movie industry eliminate smoking in films.
Lawmakers pointed to a study last year that found that teenagers who watch movies with smoking actors in them are more likely to pick up the habit. They proposed that smoking be included only in movies rated "R," which generally means the film contains foul language, sexual scenes and violence.
Jack Valenti, the head of the Motion Picture Association of America who devised the rating system, countered that free-speech rights and artistic freedom would be sacrificed if movie makers were told what they can and cannot include in scripts.
Adding smoking to ratings criteria, he said, would open the door to others, such as animal rights activists who could demand a ban on depicting animal deaths. Anti-drinking groups could insist that shots of actors sipping beer be cut, religious groups could seek curbs on how biblical characters are portrayed, and on and on.
Teenagers are indeed susceptible to media images and that's why anti-smoking campaigns have had good returns. But they are more influenced by responsible parents and families. That is where guidance away from smoking would be most effective.
