Obama orders stop to Abu Ghraib Photos part 2
 

Do you agree with the President counsel's statement "only serve the purpose of inflaming the theaters of war, jeopardizing U.S. forces, and making our job more difficult in places like Iraq and Afghanistan."?

Do you think that the photos should be released?

I agree with the counsel. I don't think that it will benefit anyone to releasing the photos. We have a taste of what happened and that is enough. Opening old wounds, waking sleeping dogs.

Personally, I don't believe they should be released. I don't think that it serves anyone to release them at this time. Maybe in the future, as a retrospective after the military actions are completed in the Middle East. Until that time. Keep the photos classified.

I think that as a nation, we need to confront ourselves about this. Torture, prisoner abuse... None of this is who we say we are as a nation. But it happened. Sweeping it under the rug won't provide us anything but more of the same. We all need to take responsibility for this. All of us. We elected the bastard whose administration started all this, and we didn't storm the mother fucking bastille when we found out this stuff was happening.

Information wants to be free, friends. If it doesn't come out through official channels, it'll come up on some underground journalist's blog. It's just way too important.

The information is already out there, how much more information needs to be there?

What is being swept under the rug?

I'd assert that the information is NOT out there. If it were, there'd be nothing to protect by withholding the photos. Given that, I have no idea what's getting swept under the rug, and neither do you.

you're asserting that the information isn't there, but I'm going to state that they do exist.

First this article from Time.com suggests that Mr. Obama doesn't want it to be swept under the rug.
Second, the cat is already out of the bag, there was torture by the military not just in Abu Ghraib but in other locations. What difference does it make if it was 1 building or 20 buildings? It's still something that needs to be dealt with at a high level to prevent such things from happening. That's something that you can agree with, so what difference does another set of photos make? How do you see it being helpful?

Do you agree with the President counsel's statement "only serve the purpose of inflaming the theaters of war, jeopardizing U.S. forces, and making our job more difficult in places like Iraq and Afghanistan."?
No, he's being a moderate (coward). Our forces are jeopardized by being where they don't belong, not by admitting we have evidence against our own people. Naming (and prosecuting) the guilty here will go a long way to demonstrate that we're not massive hypocrites, and in the long run will likely save lives, or at least prevent deaths.
Do you think that the photos should be released?
Yes. Moreover, I think they should be released in conjunction with subpoenas.

Good for Obama - he gets it. A sensible decision.

Wow, when Bush said the same thing, he was a tyrant...

You should read PowerClown's older posts. He's being totally consistent on the issue. He never had a bad thing to say about Bush's torturing program.

Violence begets violence...so to dwell on this, especially with visuals, serves only to "flame the theaters of war" as Obama said. I personally don't want visuals of this nature engraved in my brain because that never goes away. I would have nightmares forever after. I have to protect myself from things like that....not to mention our children.

They must be pretty fucking awful.

Obviously Obama made a moral judgment before he was in office, and now he's seen the photo's and I guess made a judgment that it could be bad enough to cause major civil unrest in Iraq he doesnt really have a choice bu to flip flop on it.

Basically I think we can take the fact that they want to keep them under wraps as evidence that the abuses are bad, worse than anything we've seen before, and they are scared of reprisals against their people if it gets out.

The real shame is that the criminals responsible will probably get off very lightly also if they cant afford the risk of what happened getting out by attempting to punish them.

i don't follow the argument the administration is making. it seems to me that this is entirely a bone tossed to the military and intelligence communities; the rationale is most likely some vague thing about "morale"---as if that were the issue at stake in this. so it seems to me a kinda cheap political expedient that's being pitched with a superficial, not terribly coherent argument.

that said, i would prefer to see the photos released as evidence in a criminal prosecution of the architects of the policy. the people who carried out the orders have seemed to me in a more problematic situation from the viewpoint of prosecution---primarily because the united states did not commit the only real crime against humanity, which is losing a war and being occupied by another power.

i agree with the other rb above, that the main effect of this information should be a significant period of reflection and a revamp of rules that would prevent such excesses of conservative enthusiasm from happening again.

But doesn't or can't that already happen?

If there becomes video or audio footage, is it required to release that too in order to "reflect and revamp the rules"?

maybe. it's hard to say without knowing the extent of the information, which would indicate the extent of the use of torture.
what about the extrordinary rendition program as well?

i think the issue here is that the use of torture was quite systematic, enough so that any notion of "bad apples" in one place is out the window.

it's because there appears to be not a little in the way of collective denial about this still happening that i think it would be good to continue with the ritual of releasing the information.

but again i don't buy the national security arguments at all.

Everyone posting in here, or places like this, have the possibility to make a moral judgment on this.

The President doesnt. He has to make a call that has implications and real results in the world.

If these pictures are as bad as we all must fear, Obama has to judge if they get out they could lead to rioting on the streets of Iraq, the deaths of civilians and American soldiers, even the collapse of law and order in parts of Iraq.

He has to make his decisions in that context... well they get out anyway? What interests are served by admitting the crimes that have taken place? Natural justice DOES matter, but so does the blood of real people. The blood of the victims cries for vengence, but he must fear further violence.

My view would be to release it, because its gone too far and will get out anyway, so I think Obama is wrong in this case... but again its easy for me to to make a call when what I say doesnt matter.

I suspect, as far as the national security argument goes, the opposite is in fact true. They're seeing a cover-up, do you think that will make "them" more or less likely to distrust and dislike us? If we were to have open and public investigations, seeking justice, do you think "they" would be more or less likely to distrust and dislike us? This seems a very, very simple matter.

Will, that question is very easy to answer for anyone

If at the moment people in Iraq suspect there were abuses that are being covered up, they will be far less angry than if they see all of the media photographs of Iraqi citizens being brutalized, tortured and killed. Seeing for themselves the images will create rage, a feeling of national humiliation, and very likely reprisals against western forces, western civilians, or a government that is seen as linked heavily to the West.

(And I dont know what these photo's show, but we all must suspect it is very bad... and will include disgusting violence, possibly even against women or teenage boys)

Next, I want to see Obama on an Apologies to America Tour. After going around the world calling America morally bankrupt for our Bush era security policies only to uphold most of them now he's in power, it's only fitting that he owes us a big apology.

The problem with this theory is that Iraq doesn't exist in opposite world. They're aware of the people being tortured and killed, in fact there's direct evidence from military and intelligence officers that people we've captured fighting us in Iraq were doing so because of the torture. They're angry that it happens, but more angry that it's allowed to continue. Releasing these photos is a step in correcting the egregious behaviors that "they" hate us for. It's plainly obvious that they would find any movement toward correcting the mistakes or brining those responsible to justice as a positive.

Because you're the Real America, right? Both of you?

For the record, Obama has done a damn-near-180 on most of the so-called War On Terror policies. Throw this one in and it's like a 175.

Oh yeah? 175 degree reversal you say...how do you figure?

In substance (the rhetoric is differnt, granted), I don't see too much reversal from Bush's foreign policies in these particular areas, and certainly nowhere near on the level of the CHANGE antiwar platform he ran and won on. Feel free to point out those reversals though, I would be curious to read them.

I'm afraid this thread has to become NSFW:
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/...abughraib5.jpg
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/..._470x375,0.jpg
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/...abughraib6.jpg

Prosecution is necessary.

actually, powerclown, if you had the faintest idea what you were talking about it might appear to you more obvious that things have, in fact, changed and changed pretty substantively from the period of the bush people. the rejection of torture as a matter of state policy for example. it is not at all obvious that the obama administration's policy toward israel is going to resemble that of the bush people at all--but you'd have to read a bit of information that does not come pre-chewed by whatever non-sourced conservative source you seem to confuse with something accurate. the policy toward iran really could not be more different than the one-dimensional dick-waving of the bush people. the "residual troop deployment" i assume speaks to iraq, which is entirely a bush fiasco and yet another of the fetid, stupid gifts those idiots left the rest of us that keeps on giving.

i think that there should be prosecution of the architects of the bush people's torture policies.
but i outlined in another thread the problems i see with this happening, and so far it seems to me that what i put in that thread's been pretty accurate.

You or ratbastid still not explained how MORE of these kinds of pictures changes the landscape of what happened or what can happen in the future.

The only thing I detest about these photos here now is that they are over sized and that they reformat how the thread is producing causing a side scroll bar and breaking up the CSS.

His platform was against the war in Iraq. He was always very clear that he was for increased presence of force in Afghanistan. It fits your inter-cranial narrative better to have him be a failed antiwar flowerchild, I know, but it's not consistent with what the man SAID.

He's announced plans to close Guantanamo.
He's ended extraordinary rendition.
He's said we're not waterboarding anymore.
The list goes on, but you won't pay it any attention, so why bother.

Sorry the evidence of the moral trashing of your country is causing you to have to move your hand a little bit.

That is EXACTLY what I mean when I say that as a nation, we're not confronting reality about this thing. If we really dealt with how much our moral standing, the thing that makes us great and separates us from other nations, got flushed down the toilet, and really dealt with our own complicity in that, then something would have to change about how we operate in the world. But as long as we can have this be a back-of-consciousness nuisance, we never have to do that, and we're guaranteed more of the same.

If it is of utmost importance as you state, why not put up on billboards and every news media/outlet channel, the SAME PHOTOS that exist? Why do NEW ONES need to be the catalyst? You're still not explaining it in any fashion. Because so far you've not furthered your statement except, "because I want it that way."

re: the giant photos I'd say the same thing about GIANT porn, cars, kids, whatever photos. My comment is about how the layout and coding of the site stays, not the content, you as a programmer should understand that.

i think the problem here is pretty simple, and everyone had come down on one side of it or the other so far: either you consider the american security apparatus to be as much about image as substance and so see in the release of these photos a compromise of the image, or you see in the implementation of torture as the official policy of the united states--along with other "extra-legal" treats like extraordinary rendition, as in themselves political and ethical problems that require that we, collectively, address head on.

i am of the latter opinion---it is all to easy for a bureaucracy to institute policies of torture or worse and have that policy appear to be rational and necessary. bureaucracies are stupid machines. the Problem, then, is that the legal, political and ethical frames that are in place were not enough to stop the bush people from implementing torture policies. THAT is the issue, in my view.

the security apparatus approach seems to locate the Problem either inside the bureaucracy itself, and diverts it onto the question of "morale"--often of the same people who carried out the torture---or tries (in my view) to avoid the problem altogether by appealing to the exigencies of war. my objection to both is that the function in different ways to normalize the policy itself--and by doing that, they avoid the question.

there's another problem, which is cyn;s question but turned a little: is there a connection between releasing more photos and the first approach to the questions raised by the policy itself--and on that, i think the answer is circular and a function of which of the two basic positions concerning the problem in general that you adopt.

if that's accurate, maybe we could talk more directly about why these positions diverge as they do.
if that's not accurate, i'd be interested in reading how it isn't...

The whole truth needs to come out. The whole thing needs to be transparent. Withholding certain pieces of information is NOT transparency. We need to confront the whole of it--including the secrecy around it. More pictures aren't The Answer. A massive shift toward honesty and transparency might be.

What you said was:
If you can honestly look at those photos and have "the only thing you detest" be that they break your layout... well, that's a problem.

I hate images that are wider than my layout. I REALLY hate that human beings have been broken, wounded, and humiliated in my name. I can't fathom that you could even compare the two.

People reactions, vary widely, upon seeing mans inhumanity to itself.

The shock and horror of it can be overwhelming.

Like this: (warning - these images are graphic.)

Photographs Documenting the Holocaust in Hungary


All the detainee photos need to be released.

... should become beat cops. I know. Ratbastid could drive a badass muscle car and I could be the funny guy that's trying to get girls.
Oh, well that's simple. A lot of people either still don't think we torture, or they think that the stuff we did wasn't that bad. Once the general public is of basically one mind about how bad things really got, the calls for investigations will become louder.

Obama has a far left base that is calling, with complete lack of regard or perspective on national security, for documents and photos to be released in an attempt to somehow use it to prosecute officials of the former administration. They want revenge.

Of course this wont happen because all the release of documents will do is prove a large swathe of Democrats lied all along about their knowledge and involvement, and in an effort to clear themselves from blame, they will conveniently rationalize the interrogation techniques. In doing so, they will also by default, rationalize its use by the Bush Administration.

Which for example Dianne Feinstein (D) did:
Which is of course when and why they were implemented by the Bush Administration and apparently memos so far unreleased describe that the techniques did provide information stopping another attack. The left made another impotent attempt at blaming everything on Bush to remove eyes from Obama's missteps, but all it will do is dig a grave for the Democrats.

Now in 2009, releasing the photos will serve no one any purpose other than to get people killed, completely in spite of the outright lie that they'd be used to see if this treatment was of a broader scale and directly sanctioned and called for by former President Bush. I see it as grasping desperately for straws to try and live out the far left fantasies of imprisoning Bush administration officials.

I do hope if President Obama decides to step out of the corner he has painted himself into, he doesn't release the photos. Because if he does, he and all that called for them should be considered complicit in the outcome after the Muslim world is once again whipped into a frothing rage and decides to go bomb some markets and set up some IEDs.

yes, I can say that because I am not looking at the photos nor including content or composition of them in my discussion of the layout, since I'm talking about CSS and the programming of how the display is with respect to images not sized for web forums. Besides that the horrible images, should I also comment on the poor lighting and shameful color correction?

But since you insist that I'm unable to detest something without respect to the content, I must be a horrible person.

Obviously you have no other answer, but "because I want it to be that way." and that's fine.

Are you being deliberately obtuse here? Or does it simply not bother you that human beings were tortured in your name? You're the only one who can't see the sand your head is buried in here.

The kind of self-inquiry and soul searching you've done in your 12-step work is exactly what America needs to do about this whole torture/Abu Ghraib/Gitmo situation. It's time for us to really tell the truth on ourselves. This is a unique moment in our history, with a unique opportunity to transform something. That'll only happen if we tell the WHOLE truth.

I don't understand what agenda is behind your denial of that and your dismissal of that point as something you think I want for no reason. You've consistently NOT ADDRESSED the nut of what I'm saying. So either deal with what I'm saying there is to deal with, and deal with it honestly, or continue lying to yourself. No skin off my back either way--I just hope that the rest of America reckons with itself with more honesty in this matter than you have so far.

NO, it doesn't bother me, like I've said in other threads about torture. I am not bothered by torture. In my name or not, since I'm not the one doing it, I'm not directly involved in having done it. I am not able to take blame or credit for anything politicians do as individuals. You may wish to carry that burden, I chose not to.

I don't want the American government to torture people, but just like discovering corrupt politicians, it has happened, and will happen again. It's just a matter of time, may not happen again in your lifetime, but probably will happen again since human beings are particularly cruel individuals to other human beings. That's the TRUE manner that Americans need to understand about themselves. Not that "Oh, this is America and we don't do those kinds of things." No, it's America and fucked up people do fucked up things. "Let's try not to be fucked up."

My stance has not changed. I've reconciled this for myself as honestly as I see it. You're seeing it from a political point, I'm seeing it from an anthropological and sociological point.

I'll asking you again, what purpose does it serve to ADD more photos? How does 50 more photos make it better? Once America does your reconcillation, and goes in a positive path, if more photos are discovered, what purpose or point does releasing another 100 photos serve?

there's tons of photos of tortured individuals through the decades, how is another 50 going to make the point different?

"The left" wants torturers to be prosecuted. That's justice, not vengeance, and quite frankly it's a position that is ethically unquestionable. Moreover, as has been beaten into people for years on TFP, torture doesn't work and in fact is more likely to create terrorists than protect us from them. It's a shame that "the right" (you) have a complete lack of regard or perspective on national security.

---------- Post added at 09:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:11 AM ----------

You're seeing it from an anthropological and sociological point, I'm seeing it from a mathematical and physical education point. I think you need to see it from my viewpoint despite the fact that we're posting in Tilted Politics, but I can't explain why.

Ensuring that the past (any) president and executive branch upholds the rule of law and US treaty obligations is hardly seeking revenge.

What the documents will prove is that the CIA started waterboarding BEFORE (August 02) any congressional briefing (the first in Sept 02). The docs will further prove that the CIA withheld from the Congressional security briefings the fact that the CIA and DOJ IGs questioned the legality of the enhanced interrogation techniques (EIT).


There has not been one memo released that suggests that the use of EIT prevented another attack. In fact, the so-called "second wave" attack on the west coast by Jemaah Islamiyah (the Indonesian group with al queda connections) was prevented in the planning stages, in the spring of 02, BEFORE any use of EITs.

You are confusing Cheney's attempt to protect his ass with the factual information released to-date, particularly the declassified portions of the CIA IG report.

The illegal invasion/occupation of Iraq got people killed...and was cited as a "cause celebre" for terrorist recruitment...as was the treatment of prisoners in Gitmo, Abu Grahib and "black prisons".

I would prefer that the photos be released in a closed session of the appropriate congressional committees or an independent investigator, along with documents that might suggest such abuses was NOT the work of a few low grade prison guards/interrogators, but a policy that was initiated at the highest level (that would be Rumsfeld/Cheney)

Obama cannot unilaterally stop the release of the photos. It will be up to the courts, probably the Supreme Court...and his case will be very weak, considering the ruling of the Court of Appeals.

So... the facts pretty much counter every baseless allegation or assumption in your post.

I do, I've not discounted your point of view or position. I've simply asked, how will MORE photos make it better? How does MORE photos make the underlying idea of saying that torture is bad and America shouldn't be torturing anyone stronger?

The photos having nothing to do with "torture being bad", but are likely to provide further evidence of gross violations of law. Those photos, along with still classified documents, may prove that the actions were sanctioned at the very top of the administration...and this is worth pursuing if we believe we are a country of laws.

That's a reasonable argument, but couldn't that still be accomplished by the Justice Department without releasing the photos to the general public?

Exactly. The point to all of this is about prosecuting those actually responsible, including the former president, vice president, and anyone else indicated by the evidence.

BTW, DC, after going to the Tea Parties, it's nice to know that some people still understand what "no taxation without representation" means. :thumbsup:

---------- Post added at 09:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:47 AM ----------

There's an element of public pressure necessary to investigations like this. Remember Clinton? Remember the insane public outrage over his sexual impropriety?

I don't believe that 5, 10, 20, 100, 1000, 10,000 photos make a difference. If the evidence is there the evidence is there. If the Administration or Congress doesn't care to bother, they don't care to bother.

no, I don't remember the outrage over his sexual impropriety, I remember him LYING under oath. I didn't give a shit that some girl sucked his cock in the oval office, I was upset that he commited perjury.

5, 10, 20 photos can be "explained" as overly aggressive acts on the part of a few lower level personnel w/o authorization.

1,000 or 2,000 photos would suggest a more wide spread pattern of practices that would be hard to "explain" other than to believe those actions were sanctioned.

I didn't say you were outraged, Cynth. I said there was outrage, and there was. It's why he was giving testimony about a sexual affair in the first place. Yeesh.

War criminal?

this is funny stuff.
for all the years of blah blah blah personal responsibility this personal responsibility that, these days conservatives just can't stop themselves from trying at all costs to evade it. but this torture business--the legal arguments for it, the formulation of policy, it's questionable implementation, that it was kept partially secret from congress---all of it is squarely on the right's shoulders.

it'd be nice for these heroes of personal responsibility blah blah blah to suck it up for once and deal with the self-evident.

but they just can't do it.
goes to show that "personal responsibility" mainly applies to other people, not to conservatives themselves.

No, it was mine that you discounted.

It's not surprising that so few Americans are interested in confronting the moral implications of this thing. This isn't a sociological or logistical or practical phenomenon. This is a moral question. One can dodge that, but only at the price of one's one morality.

The government has all of the power, and the government of and by the people needs transparency to serve those people. If they don't make a difference, then what's the harm in releasing them? The terrorists want to kill us no matter how many photos they have. Assuming they're sitting around and these photos are what gets them to decide to attack them is just silly. Keeping these photos secret doesn't heal the country as the outcry will continue. Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away. The only way to move past this is to act like adults. Owning up to the wrong doing is the only way to move forward.

I agree, that is exactly why it was a problem. Even though it was something that seemed small and harmless, it was a person charged with faithfully executing federal law breaking that law.

Again, I'll ask, what's the benefit in releasing them to the general public? Being released to allow for prosecution, I'm down with, but what is the benefit to the public at large?

Murder and rape victims get privacy and compassion from the media and the world at large, why not someone who's also been tortured? When do they get to heal?

Ah, so trying to bring the torturers to justice prevents the tortured from healing? What about the closure that comes from justice? Have you ever been tortured?

This isn't about privacy and compassion, it's about sweeping the problem under the rug. The photos can be released while retaining the privacy of those in the pics. The benefit to the public at large is letting them know that their government takes responsibility for their bad actions. It doesn't just lie to the people and pretend that everything is okay when everyone knows better. This is the sort of stuff that keeps people from trusting or believing in the government.

no and that's a dumb if not stupid question.

The quote specifically says someone who is tortured is no longer associating with family members out of embarassment. Great healing there.

I've not stated anything about sweeping a problem under the rug. I've not advocated for the non pursuit of offenders. I've asked simply "how does MORE photos make it better?" I've gotten a decent answer from dc but releasing it to public at large, how does it help?

I say release the photos so former President Bush can use them as exhibits in his presidential library. This is, after all, going to be one of his greatest legacies.

fact is that while there is a fairly compact chain of bush administration appointees who were directly responsible for this policy and its rationale, the entire political class caved in before the arguments that the bush administration put forward in favor of these actions. i think it is an ethical lapse of very considerable proportions and a political problem of even greater proportions. i see no way to address it apart from transparency to the greatest possible extent: release of the photos is an aspect of that transparency. the problem really with the release is not what the right says, but that the magnitude of the capitulation of the political class of the time to this bush administration policy becomes more and more obvious. but i think this a serious enough problem that the political class SHOULD feel the heat from it and should be forced to deal with it. sweeping it under the rug is not dealing with it. an ancillary fact is that the right will pay for this more than the democrats--but that too is as it should be.

it is because bureaucracies are such basically stupid organizations that it is all the more incumbent on the people who fashion--and approve---policy to not allow themselves to loose track of ethics not loose sight of fundamental human rights and the rule of law.

i agree with roachboy that this is very funny stuff.

that this poor, sad 9 year psychotic effort to prosecute President Bush or someone in his administration for something...anything, which started with hanging chads, and ended with 183, counting the drips, instances of torture (but not the fingernail/bamboo kind) on one poor soul in 30 days .....


that in the face of your own elected President (NOT MY PRESIDENT!!) blocking an effort to release interogation photos without context or even what was gained from them....that you still attempt to convice people that this is an issue of most americans being afraid of the "moral implications" of the matter is astounding.

that you now believe this is an issue of the right shying away from personal responsibility in the face of the current administration practically retiring the phrase "we inherited it" from the english language within 100 days of office

that Nancy Pelosi has convinced you things were partially kept from her....

The denial of your own motivations are in themselves mind bottling, but the pedestal you put yourselves on to take this position in an attempt to fool the populace is even more so.

matthew--i've read your post 3 times and really have no idea what you're talking about.

you apparently feel the need to trivialize this behind a smoke-screen of conservative talking points. i suppose that's your prerogative, but the idea that you agree in any way with anything i've said here (or elsewhere) about the question of torture and the bush administration is absurd.

I think he only agrees with you that it's funny.

this seems more interesting to me for some reason, since we're now all in for the long haul... if you go by the law, you go by the law....

I'll agree with you with regards to Nancy Pelosi. For her to pretend that she is the poor hapless victim of Republican shenanigans is laughable. When the fallout of this political shit sandwich hits the ground, I want her to be one of the ones at ground zero. I detest any Democrat who sold out his or her ethics in 2002-2006 due to fear of being branded anti-American or simply for the purpose of political expediency. They're all doing their worst Claude Raines impressions and I hope they get the hook for their lousy acting.

Now, as an aside: please please please - it's "mind boggling", not "mind bottling". Language matters. It really really does.

"but the idea that you agree in any way with anything i've said here (or elsewhere) about the question of torture and the bush administration is absurd"

if you read it 3 times in an honest effort to get, I would have at least thought you could've picked up on the fact that I only agree with you that this is funny, just for different reasons.

And Jumpin Jesus - I was laughing while I typed mind bottling, hoping it would draw some of the other more excitable members out. You blew it for me, you could have at least given it a chance to work its magic.

Shit. Sorry about that.

No sweat, I'll make more opportunities, stay tuned...

Yes, that has already happened as you have just stated. They were tortured. This gives them a chance to have their stories told and for something to actually be done with it. Without the outrage, nothing will happen, it will be ignored, and will likely happen again.
The government has a bad habit of breaking the law or breaching ethical conduct regularly if people don't stand up against that behavior. They have breached it on a massive scale and what was done needs to be seen. This isn't for sick sense of voyeurism, it's to document fully what was done. It's too easy to go back and change the facts down the road. It's much more difficult with overwhelming amounts of proof.

You lack the credibility to make such a determination.
It's too bad we don't have some sort of computer program that has the ability to blur faces. If such a technology existed, we could demonstrate publicly evidence of torture without revealing the identity of the victims and further victimizing them. C'est la vi.

And don't worry, I'd never dream of suggesting that anything you've posted is dumb or stupid. That would be disrespectful and uncalled for.

What's really fucking sad is the "left" is so hell bent on destroying the "right" they didn't fucking care how much damage they done until it was found out some of their very own was implicated and suddenly they are doing a complete 180 to minimize that damage. It's the same old story same old song and dance it's just being sung and danced to by a different party.

Ladies and Gentlemen there is no hope for the Republic, we are so fucked no matter which party is in charge.

Hell almost all of Obama's promises of change suddenly went by the wayside after he got in office. Either life at the top is a bit different than he surmised, the reality of the massive responsibility of being president began sinking in or he just fucking flat out lied to get elected. No matter what the excuse is we the people are so fucked.

so wait---the bush administration instituted a policy of torture and now it's out and as a result of THAT you claim that "the republic is fucked"?
so it follows then that had the policy of torture NOT been made public that the republic would not be fucked?
if thats the case, then what makes a healthy republic is the ability to torture in secret.
what kind of logic is that?

so attempts to deal with the consequences of torture, once public, has to come from "enemies of america"?
this because, of course, the right is america.

wow.

Actually, it will happen again, with or without the stories or judicial review. This is more true than your statement of "If we do this, it will never happen again."

Why? Because human beings are sick and twisted stupid motherfuckers who seem to think that this case here, this time, special case, this version, this occasion is different from the rest and they think they can get away with it.

You'd think that there's going to be no corrupt politicians, there's laws that prohibit it, there's checks and balances, there's others getting caught and prosecuted. But still, the fucked up human being thinks, "Hey, this time, I have the in, I do it this way, I call it this...." and suddenly it's rationalized and they go ahead with the action.

And the American public is shocked and outraged... shocked and outraged that some American politician shouldn't have been corrupt in the first place. Hello... politicians have been corrupt since the dawn of organized politics.

There are already people on camera, there's enough evidence showing that this happened, all that is left is the paper trail to the who and how high it went up to. Are you expecting to see Rice or Rumsfeld in the photos? Are you expecting to see some 5 star Generals?

So again, what purpose does releasing more photos serve?

There is already someone on camera in the documentary Torturing Democracy:
Read through the transcript, watch the show. If these individuals wish to be part of the prosecution and tribunal they can come forward when the time comes.

Again, how does more photos change what information is already out there and available?

When I heard "enhanced interrogation techniques" it was already apparent to me that there was something fishy about the whole thing. We have plenty of words, words that have specific meaning and purpose, but as Mr. Carlin points out, we don't like them. We like to feel special, we like to make it softer, more palatable to the cranium.

Every "leftist" in this thread seems to believe that torture was and is wrong regardless of who's in the white house. Or do you mean politicians? Because there aren't many politicians on the left in the US, just centrists.

A lot of people I know voted for Obama to vote against McCain. What do you think McCain would be doing right now?

Will, I take it "left" was meant as its colliquial meaning in the U.S., which is "liberal" or "Democrat." Most of us know that there are very few actual "leftists" with any power in the U.S. The furthest left the Democrats go are left-centre. This leaning happens as some members are more focused on social liberalism than others.

That said, it's a common trait of social liberals (and even classical liberals, from which the Republicans arose a long, long time ago) to be concerned about issues of human rights, civil liberties, etc., and have worked long and hard to create new rights regarding capital punishment, abortion, immigration, and same-sex marriage. They support a positive sense of liberty, which is why liberals (not just the left kind) are rather opposed to the idea of torture and it being trivialized by cases such as these.

I wish the right wingers had some hard left leaders to deal with instead of centrist softies.

I'm probably a bit more hawkish on national security issues than you, roachboy and others...but I consider myself a pragmatic progressive and not a centrist softie. :)

I'd say the only thing standing between you and real leftism is your devotion to the Democratic party. :thumbsup:

Yes, they are. Does that make it okay then? Do we get to go out and punch old ladies in the face because, as a whole, human beings are dicks?

Who said anything about totally ending corruption or torture never happening again? That's a ridiculous leap to take from what I said. Can you please tell me where I said that by publishing these photos, we would never have another corrupt politician again or that it would mean the absolute end of torture throughout the future of mankind? If I'm wrong, let me know, but I think you're just taking what I said out of context and pointfucking it so that you can make your point by distorting mine.

You're right, politicians are corrupt, so by your logic, we just let it go and be complicit in enabling their corruption because they're corrupt anyway?

Why put a thief in jail if they'll just go out and steal again, right? Just save the taxpayers a lot of money and send him on his way?

When someone has power and chooses to abuse it, they should be called on it. The people should know the person they've elected is corrupt so something can be done. As a resident of Illinois, I'm glad Blagojevich was called out on being corrupt. I wouldn't want that douchebag having power just because corruption has been around for a long time so that makes it okay.

So how many released photos are enough? Are there guidelines to this that I'm not aware of? I didn't realize that we reached a photo quota.

So you keep asking this question to me and continually brush my answers without answering yourself, I have to ask, what purpose does hiding the photos serve? If releasing them must have a purpose, then hiding them has to as well, right?

Agreed, I think they should show all the pictures ...

... ONLY if they show them along with the pictures of every innocent terrified soul that jumped to their horrifying deaths from the rooftops and windows of the World Trade Towers. Showing frame-by-frame their entire descent through space, some holding hands with other jumpers for comfort, the mid-air prayers and complete hysteria as they plummit to a sidewalk-splat, many landing on and killing 1st-responders and innocent victims below.

Show them ONLY if they show them alongside the images of people like Daniel Pearle having their heads sawed off.

Just trying to get it all out there. Context, perspective, intellectual honesty.

Allah Akbar!

So in the name of "intellectual honesty" you think that the pictures of torture in an Iraqi prison should be released alongside and linked to the pictures of the dead in the 9/11 attacks and in Pakistan?

otto: i doubt you'd know intellectual honesty if it it spit in your face. what your "context" thing is about is repeating the framing of torture used by the bush administration, and amounts to what the bush administration argument really was: that it is ok for the united states to itself become the kind of organization that it supposedly opposes on "moral"grounds--you know, those tiresome fictions that appeal to conservatives, that nationalist circle jerk that makes conservatives come alive. so not only does your position throw ethics out the window, but it also makes the rule of law optional---even as the nationalist circle-jerk enables folk like you imagine themselves to be above all that.

i think that's funny.
you seem attuned to jokes, otto: don't you think that's funny?

I agree that any torture was wrong and it should have never happened. It just seems so much like business as usual {where's the change?} when it's "leaked" that Pelosi and other's in the Democratic Party leadership knew and one could even argue condoned the torture {by doing nothing} suddenly nothing will be gained by releasing the photos.

I punch you in the face. You stand there and take it. Suddenly it's your fault?

oooooooooooooooookkkkkkkkkkkk where the hell are you coming from?

You don't see any conflicts with administration first stating they are releasing the photos then doing a 180 when it becomes public the democratic leadership knew in '03 or '04 {whenever the heck it was, my memory fails me momentarily} ? You see this as "change" from politics as usual?

Granted the fact the administration has publicly shied away from any future torture but in reality that is but a small change from politics as usual. Huge for the people on the receiving end of the torture but in the big picture it's but a small sliver of the whole pie.

I'm saying it's bizarre that the right is now saying, "Pelosi is the bad guy here--she KNEW what our people were doing, and didn't do anything about it!" That's just bizarre, and the blame-shifting is cynical and transparent.

I said I disagree with Obama on this. Given that, the rest of your comment MUST be aimed at someone other than me.

We should probably leave the Pelosi stuff in the Pelosi thread. Wait, is there a Pelosi flip flop thread?

I don't know how many is enough. enough to prosecute? enough to convict? seems a modicum of respect and composure for the VICTIMS themselves. I've already used that as a reason, but that's not enough, because of whatever the fuck reasons that aren't enough. Willravel doesn't think that the victims seem to count because they don't need to be around their family members, justice is the the only way to be and live right. whatever that seems to be.

I have never said that there is any reason to hide them. I've not asked for them to be hidden. I've stated that they don't need to be in front of the entire public in order to prosecute or investigate. Why don't the need to be in the public? That's obviously the next question, because as I've shown before, respect for the victims. Not the obscuring their faces, or such thing that willravel thinks is enough, because they still live with it day to day for the rest of their lives. The damage is done the trauma is done.

Honestly, I don't really see the big deal. The photos leaked anyway.

I understand, and am a proponent for freedom of information, but I also understand the implications behind such information as this, amongst other examples, that ultimately create a detrimental path for evolution of history.

Ignorance is bliss, sure, but yes, it's also just that... ignorance.

Admittedly this scenario leaves me somewhat conflicted on my own views.
Maybe I'm just jaded but the proof is in our history, this nation spent 8 years throwing the blame of war crimes and draconian policies at Bush hoping that something would incite the people to rise up, but I've lost my faith in politics "for the people" or a government "for the people, by the people" cuz it's all a big pile of bull. 8 years of protesting, petitions, exposes, documentaries, showing much worse guild than this action by Obama and nothing came of it, he served out his term, he goes back to Texas, unaccountable for the mess he left America in.

No mistake to be made here, no nitpicking in the grey area, I don't think you'll find anyone who can honestly say that Bush implemented policies that left the USA economically stronger than ever. One such as myself has felt the impact directly as I got laid off and am searching for work in an economy where the businesses are wondering if they can even afford to pay their employees a fair living wage.

So we get back to the subject of the disclosure of these photos, and I'm left going "you know what? I don't really give a f*ck"

Everything in the media is political hyperbole and the people are powerless to overturn presidential orders, powerless to demand accountability.

Though not to confuse you, my blase attitude isn't the result of feeling defeated by 8 years of Bush. It's more over the fact that I feel releasing the photos through an "official" channel such as the white house really does nothing for our country.

Scenario: Pictures are released
Result: Moral Outrage by the citizens of the US
Secondary Result: Everything stays the same.
Feared result by Obama: Moral Outrage by citizens NOT of the US, and retaliatory actions against the lives of Americans domestic or abroad.

So to me, it's moot. Released or not, nothing changed other than people have their sense of entitlement, more fuel for their vehicle of moral outrage, more reasons to hate the previous administration which this happened under. *shrug*

I would say sir that both parties are the bad guy here. One {republicans} may shoulder a bit more of the blame but the Democrats are being more and more implicated in this mess on an almost daily basis. I think it's really bizarre that when implications of the Democratic Party leadership come to light the administration that ran on a "change" and "transparent government" platform suddenly change their tune and look more and more like the Bush administration of old.

It's hard to get the tone of a comment on the internets, and this comment could be heard as trying to argue with what I said. I don't know how to make it clearer: I agree pretty much completely with you here. What I'm saying is, there's a disingenuous attempt going on from certain elements of the right to put it all on Pelosi's shoulders, which I find insulting and absurd.

I think the person who ordered the torture is more culpable than the person who stood by and let it happen. But only slightly. This thing reveals failure all the way up and down the spectrum of political leadership AND the military chain of command. And I am disturbed by the lack of change from the administration on this and other military-related issues.

And I've already given my reasons, which apparently aren't enough either. :rolleyes:

So showing any of the abuses at all is discounting the victims entirely? Do you honestly believe anyone would give a crap about any of this if the original photos had ever come out? This would have story buried deep in the paper and would have gotten a brief nod in the media overall if the photos didn't show what really happened. Do you know that the photos don't show worse behavior? Do you think it's worth pretending that we've done enough so we can pat ourselves on the back now? How does that help the victims? Inaction is not action.

You say you don't want to keep them hidden, you just don't want the public to able to see them. Can you please explain the difference?

So, if someone is assaulted, or hit by a drunk driver, the best way for the victims to heal is for the evidence to be locked away?

No, I don't know if it shows worse behavior, those that have seen them indicate that it's not worse that what has already been released. If the point is prosecution, then prosecute. If there is not going to be be any prosecution, then what is the point of releasing them to the general public? But so far the idea here is to use the photos as a political football to dress down the previous administration and the people that worked within it.


Yes, AVAILABLE to the prosecutors is not the same thing as printed in ever newspaper and shown on every 11pm news. We didn't get to see the photos for OJ Simpson's trial nor do we see them for all the murder and homicides.

I've not ever said make the evidence unavailable for prosecution. Both you and willravel need to learn to read what I've written and not what you want it to say.

So that America can deal with what it has become. Will releasing new photos have that happen? I don't know. I know that withholding them won't have it happen.

so you have more photos released, America is doing your so called introspection and "dealing with what it has become" and it's finished... a year from now more photos are discovered... need to release those too?

Not necessarily. Maybe in a year we won't need the dose of reality that we do right now.

By the way, you should know as well as anybody there's no such thing as "dealing with what you have become and it's finished".

Yes, it's a vigilant thing, but no, my point is in furthering the discussion that if I'm to understand your point of view you've got to reach a bit to understand mine.

The idea is that once the process is done and completed, you don't dwell on the shittiness of it to continue to stew within in. There is a point of moving forward and onward.

Apply that same logic to any other crime and your position will change. If someone attacked you and beat you, you'd likely report this incident to the police and expect them to arrest the man, charge him, and see him tried for assault. Someone telling you that it's over and done with, and not to dwell on it would be wrong to do so.

actually no.. it's not.

There's a point in time where you have to move on with your life as it's MORE detrimental to continue to dwell on it.

It is why the Italians and Jews have finite periods of mourning. Because at some point you're DONE.

But again, so that we can cut to the chase. You win. You're right.

That may be true, but that point in time is not yours to determine. Perhaps you'll remember the name Javaid Iqbal. Javaid Iqbal is a Pakastani Muslim arrested after 9/11 on trumped up charges and beaten severely. In 2001. After he was released, he filed a lawsuit to try and bring the guilty parties to justice. He fought in court for 8 years until his case finally reached the Supreme Court, where he lost 4-5. Would you look this man in the face and tell him that he's wrong to seek justice?
They mourn as a part of the process of closure. Believe me when I say that if you've been victimized, it's easier to get closure if the perpetrator has been brought to justice.

I'm saying:

Would you say America is at peace with itself about this thing? I wouldn't. I'd say it's still skulking in the basement waiting to eat us.

But when you're continued to be victimized because the guy next to you who didn't have anything happen to him but the cry for injustice or whatver hair he has up his ass.... well there's no closure there either.

You know.. he didn't need to still be in touch with is mother, brothers or in laws... because he got justice and now can heal, never mind he doesn't want to be with his family!

I get that Saddam Saleh al-Radi is uncomfortable with the photos being released, I sympathize, but as I said and you ignored, we can blur faces. We can blur faces. We can release all of these photographs to the public while simultaneously protecting the identity of those victimized.

Do you think this person would have trouble with people recognizing him?
http://web.mit.edu/torralba/www/BlurFace.jpg

Oh right will you're right again.

He said he was recognized in the photo... I didn't see that published anywhere in the article he's quoted in, he said that once the photos were released his family ASKED him about it...

but I'm sure you knew about it... cuz you're absolutely right again!!! it's amazing you're like Kreskin!

They were aware their family member was tortured, but decided to leave it alone. They didn't really understand what happened to him. As soon as the photographs came out, though, they were able to see with their own eyes just how bad it was and they were overcome to the point where they broke their silence. Expand that to the general population. If this can change silence to proactive engagement in the family of one of the victims, why is it so unreasonable that it can change the silence of your average American to proactively seeking justice?

Anyway, Saddam Saleh al-Radi has already been tortured. He didn't start being a victim when photos were released, he started being a victim when he was kidnapped and tortured. What about the next Saddam Saleh al-Radi? If we don't bring these people to justice, it will set precedent that we can torture in the future and the next Bush administration will eventually lead us down this same road again. There will be more Saddam Saleh al-Radis unless we prosecute.

as I've said before there will be more Saddamn Saleh even if you've prosecuted. It's not a slam dunk to think that because you prosecuted that you're stopping torture from happening in the future. People were prosecuted for war crimes in Vietnam but hey some of those same things happened in the Gulf War!!! and Iraq War!!!! OMFG! What happened????

but you're willravel, you're right... you know more about how they were "overcome" that's awesome... you should be a preacher or something since you know and can interpret the words that were on the only article that has his name. You should be able to interpret how Bible means too.

you're rigth willravel. absolutely right.

This conversation has gone downhill.

Well, I don't know about you but it seems that I'm in a discussion with someone who can see words that aren't in the article posted nor any other article or source.