Okay, so now the story goes: The Qu'ran was kicked, wetted, stood upon, and - get this - "inadvertently sprayed with urine", but most assuredly NOT flushed down a toilet.
The Pentagon helpfully released this information at 7:30 on a Friday night. That just happened to be when they got the report finished. Just after they finished watching the evening news.
My first question is a simple one: How the hell do you inadvertently spray anything with urine, let alone a religious text? Were they simply spraying urine around the place and didn't realize a Qu'ran was in the room? Or maybe the mischievous, freedom-hating detainees has fashioned a urinal-shaped Qu'ran. Perhaps the guards were peeing in the toilet, nice and neat, when someone called their name from behind and they whipped around mid-stream only to find someone holding a Qu'ran, which was then quite reasonably used as a pee shield.
There are hundreds of similarly plausible explanations.
The military leaders continue to claim that these are "rare occurrences" and that mishandling the Muslim holy book is "never condoned." Which is not to say that anyone is punished for doing it.
It also does not mean - if you are familiar with the "New English" - that those at the very highest levels of our government have not specifically condoned - even recommended - such behavior.
Nor does our not condoning such behavior prevent us from promoting many of the high-ranking officials responsible for sanctioning such abuses.
It's one thing for shit like this to happen. It's quite another for us to 1) lie about it, 2) lie about lying about it, 3) blame the media for it, and 4) promote those responsible for it. How do we think this looks? We go around saying that this "war" is not about religion, and then we do this. Not only do we do it, but we refuse to apologize for it.
We have no credibility, no moral authority, and we are creating more "America-haters" than we can ever deal with.
I watched some jackass on 60 Minutes last night basically justify any and all actions we take as being "necessary in a time of war." The reporter didn't seem interested in asking what exactly this war is against, and when it will ever end. There is no question that a true war sometimes requires playing a little fast and loose with the law. This has always been the case. But these special powers must be carefully considered and explicitly limited in scope and duration, not invoked in the name of a vaguely defined, unending war not against a specific enemy, but against a tactic.
(UPDATE :: Edited for clarity.)