The Ghosts of Gomorrah

First published 11/7/2010

Since the story first broke concerning the mistreatment of prisoners of war in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq I've believed that abuse, particularly the sexual abuse inflicted by female soldiers of the United States military police, was a deliberate open air black op initiated to outrage the enemy beyond any hope of a negotiated settlement.


When the nature of the mistreatment suffered by the prisoners was released my first question was had the Army deliberately assembled an entire unit of MP's around the psychological deformity of sexual sadism? It would take a unit in full consensus for such outrages to proceed on any regular basis. There would be risk to such a plan, the transfer orders to build such a unit would show willful intent to a court of law and the unit would be dangerously hard to conceal if entrusted with the normal duties of the military police.

Still though, such a unit would be an ideal choice to set into history the sort of events that will galvanize a people into maintaining guerilla warfare against all odds, said determination exactly what the Bushites would need to assure their carefully choreographed and most profitable little war would continue unabated for the run of their political power.



The one thing the Bushites really could not buy was the total hatred of the Iraqi people, for that they needed the Army. All things in recent history allowed for I find such a thought not only possible but plausible concerning a conflict now well established as engineered. Or perhaps the Bushite's simply took advantage of the convenient coincidence of unit(s) assigned already including enough individuals sufficiently steeped in shall we say recreational perversion as to make such an operation feasible. The images shown did greatly resemble the sort of things shown by those advertising what passes for play among the perverts. What I don't know, have no way to know is which scenario might be closer to the truth. In one sense I hope the Army did custom assemble that unit of MP's, that would indicate a concentration of perversion in uniform low enough as to need a specially chosen group for such a mission. If on the other hand there is adequate concentration of perversions within the general population of the Army as to produce such a unit by accident then the United States has a very serious problem on it's hands.

What started me thinking in such strange and slightly dated events was an exchange of words with a someone who claimed to be a United States Marine, intimated he was an officer in the Marine Corp who put forth a defense of the BDSM lifestyle. I can't imagine how anyone sworn to defend The Constitution of the United States could think they could honor that oath and at the same time defend a lifestyle where every word in the title and every concept defined within that lifestyle is in absolute contradiction of the Constitution.

The oath of enlistment is by it's grammar divided into three parts: the first being to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, the third part being an oath of obedience to the chain of command that begins with the President of the United States and is governed by the UCMJ, both sections very straightforward concepts. However the second section of that oath is that the enlistee "...will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..." which to my reading would indicate by the phrase "true faith" the enlistee has sworn to integrate the principles defined within that document into the very structures of his or her life, and since the oath contains no wording to indicate it expires upon returning to civilian life the second section of that oath would then be binding for a lifetime.

In other words those who have taken the oath of enlistment should be very careful in the choices they make concerning their lifestyle, the impact of their life style choices upon the lives around them, for by the second section of their oath of enlistment they are responsible to maintain the principles of the Constitution in every facet of their life. I am no legal scholar, far from it, but it seems to me that when a person is adjudged as having willfully violated that oath the name of the crime is treason, and that is even yet a hanging offence.