Comments on: Unaccomplished Ex-Con Disinvited to Speak at Library of Congress; Free Speech Dead!

By: I Like Books

I Like Books — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:22:45 +0000

I have never really liked going after the grunts for “Just following orders.” They only know the laws they’re trained in, they only know they can disobey an illegal order if their military culture supports them in that. To a large extent they have to trust the guidelines that their superiors give them– they can’t pick and choose which orders to follow or which assignments to accept. The folks who created the guidelines should absolutely be hauled in. But the grunts are damned if they do and damned if they don’t, but they can be under enormous pressure to do. They can’t quit the job, but they could wind up in prison for insubordination, or sanctioned in any number of other ways.

As I understand Abu Ghraib, however, the grunts innovated. I still put more blame on the superiors for inadequate training and supervision, for insufficient efforts to create the right culture. Even the business world has higher standards, and they don’t have the kind of control over their staff that military officers do. I just sat through a video on harassment in the workplace. Where were the videos on inappropriate treatment of prisoners?

By: bhnr6

bhnr6 — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 08:32:20 +0000

The difference is when you pretend to be a librarian blogger and you are journalist posing.

By: sidney

sidney — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 07:27:14 +0000

Is there some big distinction between blogger and journalist that I’m missing?

By: bhnr6

bhnr6 — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:53:19 +0000

**yawwwwnnnnnn**

The Annoyed Librarian is fast becoming the Annoying Journalist.

By: Another possibility

Another possibility — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 05:35:30 +0000

I wonder if somebody at LoC might have listened to the recent This American Life interview with Ms. England and realized that she’s just plain dull. I mean “dull” as in both “an uninteresting speaker” and “not terribly bright”.

She’s on record with her excuse for “why she did it,” and it’s a little more sordid than the Nuremberg defense–as I recall, she served in a clerical position and wasn’t ordered to do anything unethical with the prisoners.

England claims she got involved because her boyfriend, also at Abu Ghraib, wheedled her into it. She’s trying to paint herself as a victim in the affair, and she’s pretty unapologetic. She’s much more upset over having become the poster girl for Abu Ghraib than over actually having done bad things.

After listening to the interview with her, I can see how the organizers would have realized nothing good–for the left or right–could possibly come from having her speak. The controversy might have provided a good excuse for avoiding the trainwreck.

By: Dances With Books

Dances With Books — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 08:50:53 +0000

She should not have been invited in the first place, given that she has not accomplished anything other than being an idiot and getting her photo taken while being an idiot. But they did invite her. I say they should have let her talk, then ask her some really tough questions, and I mean tough, not some softballs from a few supporters. If the “following orders” line did not work for the folks at Nuremberg, it should not work for her. I would love to hear her reply to “why did you do it? Did you not think even once it could be wrong?” Does not get any more free speech than that. Let her speak, then hold her accountable for said speech.

By: walter

walter — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 08:23:44 +0000

not all of “the left” is anti.gun

see http://www.americangunculturereport.com

By: literatelibrarian

literatelibrarian — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 08:08:52 +0000

“It’s a disgrace that the dishonorable profit and that we use government property and resources to glorify the gutless.”

Did a librarian really write this somewhere? Good grief. You’d think an alleged advocate of free speech would at least try to write in complete sentences.