Limbaugh on federal judge who ordered Abu Ghraib photos released: He "has sided with our enemies of Al Qaeda"
On the September 30 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh attacked U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, who recently ordered the release of dozens more pictures of prisoners being abused at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Limbaugh claimed that Hellerstein "sided with our enemies of Al Qaeda." He continued: "Anything you can to harm and destroy the country, anything you can to be critical of this country, will be permissible on the wacko American left."
On September 29, Hellerstein ordered the release of 74 photographs and three videotapes from Abu Ghraib, which critics have claimed could harm the military's reputation or hinder U.S. efforts in Iraq. Limbaugh has repeatedly made light of the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib. On his May 6, 2004, broadcast, he described U.S. guards' mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners as "brilliant," and on August 4, 2004, he claimed the abuse was "sort of like hazing, a fraternity prank. Sort of like that kind of fun."
From the September 30 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Another American judge, U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, has sided with our enemies of Al Qaeda. Pictures of detainee abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison must be released, despite government claims they could damage America's image. Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein said terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that they do not need pretexts for their barbarism. The American Civil Liberties Union sought the release of 87 photographs and four videotapes as part of an October 2003 lawsuit.
Anything you can to harm and destroy the country, anything you can to be critical of this country, would be permissible on the wacko American Left.
Palin, the press, and her "no más" moment
Media Matters: Limbaugh's Off the Wall spin on Michael Jackson's death
Howard Kurtz's wasted opportunity
Though I disagree with Limbaugh's characterization of the judge and the ACLU, I have to say I don't know what is gained by the release of the photographs. We already know the abuse was bad.
But in his 50-page ruling, the judge said: "My task is not to defer to our worst fears, but to interpret and apply the law, in this case, the Freedom of Information Act, which advances values important to our society, transparency and accountability in government.
"Our struggle to prevail must be without sacrificing the transparency and accountability of government and military officials," he added.
Judge Hellerstein said America "does not surrender to blackmail, and fear of blackmail is not a legally sufficient argument to prevent us from performing a statutory command.
"Indeed, the freedoms that we champion are as important to our success in Iraq and Afghanistan as the guns and missiles with which our troops are armed."
[link to news.bbc.co.uk]
The judge's explanation that I just posted above reflects principled reasons for his decision. But I think you want hear a practical reason for releasing the photos. A practical reason is that it will bring this administration closer to admitting it's policy of trying to use torture in some way. Why is encouraging torture good, but reporting it bad?
Don't you think that it is contradictory for conservatives in news shows to in one breath say that the President doesn't encourage torture, and then in another breath give several reasons that torture is useful?
You are correct -- I was looking for the practical reason. I don't think it will "will bring this administration closer to admitting it's (sic) policy of trying to use torture in some way." They'll never admit to anything.
Do I think it's contradictory for conservatives to say in one breath that the President doesn't encourage torture, and then in another give several reasons that torture is useful? Yes, I'd say that's contradictory. I like the judges reasoning, though he's not concerned with what may or may not be the collateral damage resulting from this disclosure. His job, as he put it, is to simply "interpret and apply the law".
publius - Wednesday October 5, 2005 11:39:00 AM EST
Do we? In another thread you have posters saying that no one was killed and repeating Limbuaghs they were just having fun canard. No, I cant say that its clear enough how bad it was, not clear enough that the right has stopped LYING about it.
Yes, I think we did see enough. Any further disclosures (pictures) is, in my mind, a prurient interest. The damage was done by the initial disclosure. The 'cats out of the bag'. Do we want to 'rub salt in the wound'?
I have no idea why this judge released these photos. Further, why did the media feel the need to see more of the same stuff? That story has been beaten to death, let it die. The problem is that it is true that the release of these photos could cause another firestorm much like the false Newsweek article about the Koran did. Limbaugh is right on that point. In the interest of the safety of our troops, the photos should have been kept sealed. I also do not understand the need for the ACLU to get involved in this case. I cannot see how the ACLU is any different than "ambulance chaser" lawyers anymore. They seem to just run around looking for someone to sue, no matter the consequence. It makes no sense to endanger our troops, and yet they only seem concerned with their "right to know." That lack of thoughtfulness is exactly why some on the right label them "wackos."
You are wrong on many fronts, but to correct just one:
The Newsweek article did not cause the riots. They were prompted by the prospect of permanent US military bases being built in Afghanistan.
False!!!!
Were you there and did you talk with some of the rioters or here what they were saying there pal. Some of you guys should join the millitary and get shipped over there to see what actually goes on there then here the crap that comes out of some of your mouths.
Newsweek debacle caused some people to die, period.
apache25 - Thursday October 6, 2005 11:56:14 AM EST
Thats funny chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said the story (actually it was a little blurb not a story) was NOT the cause of the rioting. HMMM lets see, who to believe the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff Gen Richard Myers or some guy who comes on a website and tells us all he just KNOWS, with not a shred of evidence, apparantly by use of his amazing mind reading powers that it WAS the cause? Get over yourself, if you know things the joint chiefs of staff dont about Afghanistan from your extensive middle east contacts gleaned from your mothers basement, by all means call them up and tell them, what they really need is YOU making up for their lack of ability, then you can wake up.
[link to usinfo.state.gov]
Afghan Riots Not Tied to Report on Quran Handling, General Says
Washington – The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff says a report from Afghanistan suggests that rioting in Jalalabad on May 11 was not necessarily connected to press reports that the Quran might have been desecrated in the presence of Muslim prisoners held in U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Air Force General Richard Myers told reporters at the Pentagon May 12 that he has been told that the Jalalabad, Afghanistan, rioting was related more to the ongoing political reconciliation process in Afghanistan than anything else. (snip)
However, Myers said an after-action report provided by U.S. Army Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry, commander of the Combined Forces in Afghanistan, indicated that the political violence was not, in fact, connected to the magazine report.
"Further, why did the media feel the need to see more of the same stuff?" --lefty99
-------------------------------------------------------
What makes you assume it's the same stuff? If it isn't the same stuff, would that change your mind? --open_mind
~~
"The problem is that it is true that the release of these photos could cause another firestorm much like the false Newsweek article about the Koran did. Limbaugh is right on that point." --lefty99
--------------------------------------------------------
Actually, MMFA debunked this myth long ago. --open_mind
~~
"In the interest of the safety of our troops, the photos should have been kept sealed. I also do not understand the need for the ACLU to get involved in this case. I cannot see how the ACLU is any different than "ambulance chaser" lawyers anymore. They seem to just run around looking for someone to sue, no matter the consequence. It makes no sense to endanger our troops, and yet they only seem concerned with their "right to know." That lack of thoughtfulness is exactly why some on the right label them "wackos."" --lefty99
--------------------------------------------------------
I would think that if you were really interested in the safety of our troops, you would more critically consider the people and policies that put them in harms way in the first place. Do you really think these pictures are going to be a big surprise for Iraqis considering our soldiers have done this to them? Do you really think the insurgents need an excuse to attack us? Or were they just beginning to like us? Maybe I missed something there.
Your snipe on the ACLU that they are no different than "ambulance chaser" lawyers anymore is ridiculous. "Ambulance chaser" lawyers are out to pervert the law in order to make a monetary gain. Where are the huge profits in making these photos public? Your analogy needs work. --open_mind
Although I agree that Bush and his administration's record on this has been abysmal and accountability needs to go up the ladder until the advocates of this torture have been exposed, and they may well be resisting more photos being released to protect their behind from further scrutiny - I don't know what their real motivation is?
But the fact remains that releasing more of the same inflammatory pictures of prisoner abuse puts our troops at more danger. Insurgent and al queda recruiters will use this to bring more into their fold, injurious to our troops and putting their lives more at risk. This is just piling on and the result of it endangers American lives. For that reason alone, more pictures should not be released.
If I had a son or daughter, or a father or mother fighting in Iraq right now knowing their lives could be at a greater risk..........enough reason for me.
The Iraqis and Al Qaeda know that the US is torturing prisoners. It is the American people that need to wake up.
"Insurgent and al queda recruiters will use this to bring more into their fold" --Tommy
---------------------------------------------------
I have heard you argue many times that doing things in order to not PO the terrorists is just appeasement. How is this not showing these pictures any different in your mind than not (illegally) invading Iraq, which arguably helped insurgent/Al Qaida recruiting much more than these photos ever will.
open_mind,
Surely you can see that not wanting more photos released is hardly appeasing terrorists - that is quite a leap. I have already said why doing so puts our soldiers at more risk....some here have opined that oh well, for the short term it's not good, but the long term it is......I don't share that view.
Our job in Iraq is obviously difficult enough and our troops don't need more risks than necessary.
"Our job in Iraq is obviously difficult enough and our troops don't need more risks than necessary." --Tommy
---------------------------------------------------
I agree, but the time to consider difficulty for our troops was long ago and at least half of that conversation was ignored.
Do you value openness, transparency and accountability in government or just when it is convenient to do so? The Soviet Union and NAZI Germany tried the opposite route to ours. Do you prefer their values to ours?
open_mind,
This openness, transparency argument does not wash. Who, in the world, is unaware of this whole torture scandal? It was on the front page of the NYT for months - it isn't like this story hasn't been out there for everyone to examine. Of course the abuse may have involved more people, but to use the excuse of no transparency or comparing our policy to the Soviets or Nazi Germany is ridiculous.
Be honest, most people on this site wanting more of the same are not so much interested in transparent government as they are in furthering to embarass Bush.
"Be honest, most people on this site wanting more of the same are not so much interested in transparent government as they are in furthering to embarass Bush." --Tommy
-----------------------------------------------------
It is not my motive, but of course, I will admit that. But conversely, you need to admit that most the people who are arguing the other way are out to just as mindlessly defend the President, although I don't know if that is your motive or not.
I have no interest, and have said so numerous times, in defending this President or any politician. That is not where my motives lie, I can assure you.
"This openness, transparency argument does not wash. Who, in the world, is unaware of this whole torture scandal? It was on the front page of the NYT for months - it isn't like this story hasn't been out there for everyone to examine. Of course the abuse may have involved more people, but to use the excuse of no transparency or comparing our policy to the Soviets or Nazi Germany is ridiculous." --Tommy
------------------------------------------------------
I admitted it was hyperbole to contrast our approach with the Soviets and NAZI's but it does go to show a point about transparency.
The magnitude and scale of this kind of abuse can only be truly known if ALL of the available information is released.
In WWII when we liberated the concentration camps, Ike decided wisely to document everything he saw so that no one could deny it. That documentation has been used to debunk Holocaust denyers who falsely claimed the numbers were exaggerated or that it simply didn't happen. The scale of the documentation became important in debunking these theories.
Transparency keeps that from happening again.
open_mind,
I think to compare the senseless slaughter of millions of innocent people during the Holocaust to the mistreatment of prisoners during a War is not appropriate.
Transparency, openness is all well and good - maybe when our military activity is finished in Iraq then I would agree with you that all information should be for public consumption - more can wait until American's are at less risk. Why do you feel it so crucial to get your hands on more of these pictures?
I expected the canard at some point that comparing the abuse at Abu Ghraib to the Holocaust was ridiculous. Of course it is. It is not the point. If all of the information about the Holocaust wasn't shared, it could have falsely been denied.
Transparency is a feedback mechanism. Feedback is important to our society to keep from making the same mistakes over and over again. Hopefully the full extent of the problem can be known so that policies may be applied to prevent further embarassments to ALL of us. I believe many of these corrective policies have been implemented to the Bush Administration's credit, but some people still don't get it.
Any effort to curtail the extent of knowlege about a problem is an effort to propagate the error. If our government avoids being beaten over the head a few times with its mistakes, it grows arrogant very quickly and loses much of its accountability as a direct result of lack of transparency.
What exactly is "our job in Iraq"?
"Surely you can see that not wanting more photos released is hardly appeasing terrorists - that is quite a leap." --open_mind
----------------------------------------------------
It wasn't my argument. It was yours. Are you saying your own argument was a leap or that the analogy is not fair in some way?
open_mind,
I never said not releasing more photos would appease the terrorists - it has nothing to do with they are demanding or wanting, which is appeasement. It has everything to do with inflaming them and giving them more ammunition against our troops - and to say they don't need anymore is naive. They use whatever tools, not to mention Al Jazeera, to recruit future terrorists through anti-American hatred.
This is a War we are in, like it or not. It is not some political correctness "gotcha" game the ACLU likes to play. American lives are at risk and it is our government's responsibility to protect our lives, that takes precedence over more of the same.
Tommy,
Isn't it the right that always says: "Well the troops KNEW what they're getting into when they VOLUNTEERED" whenever the left points out how poorly prepared the administration was for the war in Iraq or how dangerous we've made it for them?
Couldn't the same argument be used now?
Personally, I'm truly torn on this issue. I don't know what the right answer is. I can see how releasing these pictures can inflame emotions but at the same time, I am deeply concerned that we are allowing our gov't to gain more and more control over information and how it is disseminated. What's next, where does it lead and who decides what information the public should or should NOT be allowed to see?
rjc,
I am with you on most of this - I am also very torn on this issue because I do think that the culture of torture has been allowed, at the very least, to go on in this administration......and those responsible should be held accountable. However when push comes to shove, I have to come down on the side of the troops and their safety on this one. I firmly believe, despite their reprehensibility, releasing more photos is injurious to our soldiers - and for that reason alone, I am against releasing more right now.
As for the public's right to know, decisions are made all the time concerning sensitive and classified information that should not be out for public comsumption - when it is our national security's interest.
Well said Tommy.
I have the same torn feelings on this topic and I also agree with an earlier comment you made about leaving the door open for a later release of this information.
Tommy,
I would be very inclined to agree with you IF at some point a full non-partisan investigation, accounting and release of all the information was guaranteed.
The problem is that we know that will never happen. So this will all get swept into the dustbin, some low-level troops get canned and we've created a blue-print for future administrations to get away with torture and murder in our name.
I would be very inclined to agree with you IF at some point a full non-partisan investigation, accounting and release of all the information was guaranteed.
*********************************
I would certainly hope that some, any, respected official in this government would actively pursue this being investigated in the future. On that, I would be with you 100% holding their feet to the fire.
"I would certainly hope that some, any, respected official in this government would actively pursue this being investigated in the future. On that, I would be with you 100% holding their feet to the fire." --Tommy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Like that's ever gonna happen.
About time you boys read "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" - A History of Nazi Germany - by William Shirer. Amazing how the folks were so taken in by this charismatic vagabond and who followed him so blindly just as the repugs are doing. Granted, bush is not smart enough be compared to Hitler, but I know who is...do you?
tommy wrote:
"As for the public's right to know, decisions are made all the time concerning sensitive and classified information that should not be out for public comsumption - when it is our national security's interest."
True. The big catch, of course, is how we define national security and who gets to define it.
The reason I favor releasing this information is that I'm afraid if it stays secret, justice will never be done. I worry that if the torture is not investigated, instigators may be left in their positions and the torture will happen again--which makes things much less safe for our troops.
To be honest, some of my opinion comes from gut reaction. In my experience, silence often favors the bad guys. If no-one reports an abuse, whether it is petty workplace harrassment or soul-crushing child abuse, it continues. I very badly do not want this torture to continue, and I'm very afraid that it will.
You don't want to release the pictures because you don't want our troops to be seen as sadists, to be shot at and killed by vengeful idiots. My disagreement is with the method, not the goal. I believe that we must prevent future torture, punish the guilty and be seen to do so. Repairing our image, politician-style, is not the answer. We need to change something real.
We will never know where to start if we don't have an investigation. And I'm very afraid we won't have an investigation without releasing those pictures.
Irene
tommy - Wednesday October 5, 2005 01:51:03 PM EST
Once again for the rightwing the problem isnt the policy of torture, its that people will find out about the torture. The Iraqis know they have been tortured, the families of those murdered know their brothers and sons are dead. The people of Iraq know very well what has gone on at Abu Ghraib, the dirty little secret is being kept from no one but the American people. The right is STILL insisting that nothing more than fraternity prank humiliation went on there. We must put a stake through the heart of that lie.
solon,
I could care less what the "right or left" says about this issue.......why is this a partisan right vs. left issue anyway. This is about national security and the lives of soldiers. Who made this into a partisan battle? It is nonsense. The reason, in my opinion, that it became partisan is for one reason and one reason alone > many Bush haters found this as a hot new vehicle to jump onto and slam him. I, on the other hand, could care less about Bush or how this affects him negatively or otherwise.
I find it so hypocritical of the left that there was so much outrage over Valerie Plame's outing that it endangered our citizens, but this doesn't rise to that level?....gimme a break!
I find it so hypocritical of the left that there was so much outrage over Valerie Plame's outing that it endangered our citizens, but this doesn't rise to that level?....gimme a break! by tommy
***
I agree Tommy. I was disgusted they turned the Plame outing into a partisan thing and I think the same is happening with this issue.
Some things should come before partisan politics. It isn’t all about who wins. We should not sacrifice peoples security and lives on the alter of partisan politics.
The people who tried to minimize the Plame incident are some of the same people who now want to jump on the risks of showing the photos. Hypocrisy as usual abounds on both sides of the aisle.
lostlogic,
Totally agree......it seems that almost everything is seen through a partisan prism lately, worse than recent memory. I don't think any one party is to blame, yet both parties and their shrill commentators are to blame. It appears only hyperbole and accusations, and way too much focus on every little word, and the gotcha game is played ad nauseum.
Also, there just isn't enough news to fill three all news cable channels 24/7 so controversy and partisan politics is ratings gold, apparently.
This issue, above many others, should transcend political gamesmanship - sadly, it does not.
Also, there just isn't enough news to fill three all news cable channels 24/7 so controversy and partisan politics is ratings gold, apparently. -by tommy
***
Excuse me while I head off topic…
I think there is plenty of news and information to fill cable 24/7. Unfortunately it seems the reporters are to lazy to do in-depth reporting and the public is only interested in sensationalism and headlines. It has always baffled me that we now have 24/7 news coverage but we get less information and news then ever before. But all they do is continuously recycle the same shallow headline of the day over and over again.
There are many important things to discuss besides what stupid comment some pundit makes but there appears to be little interest from the public in hearing any of it.
lostlogic,
It may be off topic, but you are exactly right.....I should have phrased it your way. That's why the Scott Peterson trial and Aruba get all the airtime - give the public what they want > sensational escapism over serious issues.
Lostlogic, you should check out one of Al Gore's recent talks on TV News and how it has become nothing more than entertainment to keep people paying attention to the advertisers' products. The biggest problem this country is facing is that TV news is controlled by big corps that are interested only in making profits. This means that they are going to produce the cheapest shows possible while getting the most advertising bucks. The same goes for radio shows like Rush's and Oreilly. There is no necessity for factual content, just keep the viewers tuned in for the commercials. This has also meant that "news" has cut reporters and newsroom budgets making it virtually impossible to get actual news on that people will watch.
tommy - Wednesday October 5, 2005 06:06:02 PM EST
Then forget about WHO is saying what and just look at the fact that the 'it wasnt that bad story' still is being said at all. Until we come to grips with the reality of this, until we aknowledge and take steps to stop this from happening again which is my biggest concern, we will not have done what is necesary to call ourself a decent people. I am not convinced this will go bad for the soldiers, the Iraqis know very well what happened at Abu Ghraib, I bet in the streets of Bagdad you dont hear anyone saying well it was only a minor prank. Its very convienient to say its just about Bush bashers trying to slam him, IF your agenda is to protect Bush from accountability, you say you dont care about that but the rest of what you say is the very way to protect him from that accoutability, until it is CLEAR to everyone just how bad this is there is zero chance there will be such accountability, where is the investigation right now? Thats right there isnt one.
I guess its just convienient again that your take on the Plame affair just happens to be the one that calls for this administration NOT to be accountable. For myself I never made the argument that it would endanger our citizens actually it would endanger those foriegn contacts she had but my main concern was and is that it is against the law and it was done as partisan pique, how ironic that you pick as your example Karl Rove doing outing Plame, hurting national security goals, in a fit of partisan pique to claim the left is just trying to get the photos out there for partisan purposes, I am not partisan, I am not even a democrat, if this had happened under Clinton I assure you I would be saying exactly the same thing. This is appalling and must be dealt with NOT by sweeping it under the rug. As long as I keep hearing people tell me that no one died at Abu Ghraib and it was only some humiliating behaviour I want those photos out there.
"I agree that Bush and his administration's record on this has been abysmal and accountability needs to go up the ladder until the advocates of this torture have been exposed. But the fact remains that releasing more of the same inflammatory pictures of prisoner abuse puts our troops at more danger...For that reason alone, more pictures should not be released." -- Tommy
I'm glad to hear that you're in favor of bucking the accountability for what happened at Abu Ghraib as far up the chain of command as it needs to go. However, you've also said that you're opposed to the ruling that the pictures be released. If I may ask, do you honestly believe that the former can be satisfactorily and successfully achieved without the latter? And if so...how do you propose going about this? The previous pictures have been out for over eighteen months, but comparatively little has been done so far apart from punishing those who physically participated in these acts -- and this is perhaps at least in part due to conservatives like Rush who've been doing everything in their power to dismiss, discredit, downplay, and rationalize it as somehow "not really all that bad". I believe that one reason why this may not have been investigated in depth so far is because of public apathy -- the "old" photographs are (or should be) very disturbing, but I think it's possible that the American people have been somewhat cavalier about demanding a full investigation because they don't really define what these pictures contain as an atrocity. Humiliating, perhaps -- but not barbaric, and not sufficient reason for outrage. However, if the rumors are true, the "new" pictures are much worse. The Bush administration has, so far, been fairly successful in their efforts to deflect and disavow any responsibility for Abu Ghraib -- in my opinion, releasing these pictures and showing them to the American people may be the only way of waking them up enough to demand that more be done to hold everyone who was responsible accountable for what happened. To some extent, the Bush administration has escaped having to answer for what happened because the American people have allowed them to do so -- is there any particular reason to believe that this will change any time soon? Surely you acknowledge that the more secrets someone is allowed to keep, the more they can get away with? The Bush administration has been more than happy to use this as an excuse to scratch away at our civil liberties -- why should they be allowed to get away with it?
And with regard to "putting our troops in danger", I can't deny that I share some of that concern. However, in all honesty, don't you think that the "lion's share" of the blame rightly belongs on the shoulders of those who authorized what went on there in the first place? After all, you're someone who's been more than happy to wax on at length on this site about people giving thought to the potential consequences of their actions...!
tommy - Wednesday October 5, 2005 01:01:34 PM EST
Its not more of the same and you KNOW it isnt we have been over this before. The other photos were bad, but they showed only sexual humiliation. Rumsfeld says the photos in question show acts of inhuman cruelty and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham says they depict RAPE AND MURDER, thats NOT more of the same.
solon,
Then taking what you are saying, how is this trying to be covered up or hidden by anyone? I have not denied the torture nor have I ever, ever said it should be condoned or swept under the rug.....those responsible, all the way up to Bush if necessary, should be held 100% accountable. But this is not just a "let's get all the information and all the pictures out there so we can get at the truth........" The ramifications of releasing more inflammatory photos RIGHT NOW are too grave for our soldiers and our increasingly difficult mission in stabilizing Iraq and training their people to eventually defend themselves so we can get out as soon as possible.
There will be time, I would sincerely hope, for the chips to fall where they may in regards to these photos.....now is just too sensitive and dangerous time for many to do so.
"The ramifications of releasing more inflammatory photos RIGHT NOW are too grave for our soldiers and our increasingly difficult mission in stabilizing Iraq and training their people to eventually defend themselves so we can get out as soon as possible. There will be time, I would sincerely hope, for the chips to fall where they may in regards to these photos.....now is just too sensitive and dangerous time for many to do so." -- Tommy
--------------------------------------------------------------
And when might that be, pray? As yet, the Bush administration has either been unable or unwilling to provide anything definite regarding the majority of our forces would be withdrawn from Iraq. As it happens, they've been building some 14 "enduring bases" there [link to www.globalsecurity.org]. Ostensibly, of course, this is in support of the current operations -- but it's hard not to see that this also opens the door to potential long-term entrenchment. A recent report indicated that only ONE Iraqi battalion is currently capable of combat without US support [link to www.msnbc.msn.com]. If that's not enough to drive the point home, here's what Condoleeza Rice is quotes as saying back in June of this year when she appeared on Fox News Sunday: "[T]he administration, I think, has said to the American people that it is a generational commitment to Iraq."
Care to share your thoughts on this?
The other photos were bad, but they showed only sexual humiliation. Rumsfeld says the photos in question show acts of inhuman cruelty and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham says they depict RAPE AND MURDER, thats NOT more of the same. by solon
***
That is the point. We do know what the pictures depict. Do you need to actually see a picture of someone being raped or murdered to grasp the concept? That is as ridiculous as having to watch a beheading video to understand what these terrorist are all about.
As far as changing those on the right who label it as “fraternity pranks”. They know exactly what we know and they still call rape and murder and sexual humiliation “pranks”. Those folks are lost in their blind ideology and putting out MORE photos now wouldn’t make any difference to those people.
lostlogic,
Excellent point
"That is the point. We do know what the pictures depict. Do you need to actually see a picture of someone being raped or murdered to grasp the concept? That is as ridiculous as having to watch a beheading video to understand what these terrorist are all about." --lostlogic
----------------------------------------------------------
There is a difference between reading about something in the paper and seeing it with your own eyes. If you don't want to look than don't, but the unvarnished truth should be available.
There is a difference between reading about something in the paper and seeing it with your own eyes. If you don't want to look than don't, but the unvarnished truth should be available. by open_mind
***
Yeah, great idea. Let’s violate the victim all over again by publishing pictures of their rape for all to see because we need to see pictures of their humiliation to understand it.
This is a new tactic. Don't you think the victims faces will be pixelated? If the victims recognize their own abuse by some chance, I would like them to use this evidence to extend a lawsuit against our government. They should have that right as well. Until this information is out there, they have little recourse. I don't think they can rely on vivid accounts to make their cases as well either.
This is a new tactic. Don't you think the victims faces will be pixelated? If the victims recognize their own abuse by some chance, I would like them to use this evidence to extend a lawsuit against our government. They should have that right as well. Until this information is out there, they have little recourse. I don't think they can rely on vivid accounts to make their cases as well either. by open_mind
***
Nope. No new tactic. I have always recognized that these victims were real people…sounds like the thought never occurred to you.
Do you really think a rape victim wants to see pictures of their rape published? Do you advocate this for all rape victims trying to get justice or just the ones who can be used as a political tool?
And yeah some may show the picture pixilated but like every other time pictures are made public there will be some who do not obscure the face. And I wouldn’t want to be the victim who recognizes themselves and is forced to see these images ad nausea as is the want of most news outlets with sensational pictures.
And if they wish to bring a case against their attacker then the pictures will be made part of that record not released to the public at large for publication.
lostlogic - Wednesday October 5, 2005 06:10:04 PM EST
Do the people who were raped and tortured or the families and friends of those murdered need to see photos to KNOW they were raped and murdered the only ones this secret is being kept from is the American people. You say that you know which is good and those who dont will never be satisfied as if those are the only two groups of people existant but I assure you they are not. Lindsey Grahams statements were not widely circulated they were a story quickly gone. I have talked to people I work with who were repeating the Limbuagh line that there was no real torture and were shocked when I told them of Graham and Rumsfelds statements, a couple of them said it would be shocking IF it were true. The first photos got wide attention, then the story line from Fox and the right was that it wasnt that bad, IF you watched the hearings on Cspan you got the story if you were paying close attention you got the story but there are still a whole lot of people out there who DONT have the whole story and you know who those people ARENT? Iraqis, THEY know the real story. I am not convinced it will make things worse for the troops. IF we are shown not just showing the troops but also taking steps to hold all those accountable in the administration I think it will be good for our image in Iraq not bad, THEY already know the worst the American people to a large extent do NOT, on this very site people are still towing the it wasnt very bad canard.
by solon - Wednesday October 5, 2005 09:23:24 PM EST - *** Solon,
You make some good points. And I am a Cspan geek but I also heard some of the accounts at the time on mainstream media channels.
If these people were provided proof, whether they were the replaying of the accounts or the additional pictures, what do you think the end result would be? These people who were so quick to dismiss the accounts (probably because it was too uncomfortable for them to acknowledge) will also ascribe to the view that it was just a handful and they have been punished because that is a truth they can handle.
I would like to know what actual gain will be the result of this release. If I thought the result would be worth it I would reevaluate my stance but so far no one has given me an answer.
lostlogic - Wednesday October 5, 2005 09:34:11 PM EST
I am thinking that the photos and videos will be so shocking to Americans that just cant believe such things would be done by us, that a groundswell of outrage, like I feel, would ensue and demand that those responsible in any fashion were held responsible. IF that were not going to happen or if it were happening ANYWAY without that groundswell of outrage, I would be fine witholding the photos which I will not seek out anyway. I know enough to be outraged without seeing them. Its about the accountability I dont see any, I want those responsible to be dealt with I want the world to see this is NOT what America is about that we will not tolerate nor condone such actions. America really needs that, we have been damaged, we need to correct that. I see the photos as key to that happening
by solon - Wednesday October 5, 2005 09:42:50 PM EST
***
I think the majority school of thought is this was a handful of “bad apples” and they have been and are being punished. I don’t agree with that school of thought. I do think the abuse was systemic. I don’t think the additional release will change their minds and produce this groundswell you hope for. Maybe you will be proven right and I will be proven wrong…if the SCOTUS doesn’t overturn the decision I guess we will soon find out.
It is probably a pessimistic view I have but I think the majority pay lip service to the abuse being bad but don’t really care because in their eyes the prisoners are/were the enemy.
I think the only way we will see accountability is if we lean on our elected representatives to have this investigated all the way to the top. And if our elected reps actually grew a spine and did it.
lostlogic - Wednesday October 5, 2005 10:13:17 PM EST -
I have to agree with you there. The main use democrats have been over the last few years is their entertainment value. There is something facinating about watching and invertabrate try to stand up for something.
by solon - Wednesday October 5, 2005 10:18:00 PM EST
***
Oh I wasn’t referring to just Democrats; although I do agree with your amusing description of their recent behavior.
I think there are many a Republican that needs to develop that spine thingy too. I think I noticed McCain’s falling out the back of his shirt. And of coursed they could do with a little reminding about what conservatives actually stand for.
I think I noticed McCain’s falling out the back of his shirt. by lostlogic
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Unfortunately, I noticed that too, lostlogic. There was a time when I thought I could vote for McCain; but after watching him support the very people who have smeared him and his family and violated every principle he says he stands for, I no longer think I could do that.
lostlogic - Wednesday October 5, 2005 10:33:52 PM EST
I agree, McCain is my Senator, he is a good example of a conservative I used to have respect for and still takes principled stands, but he does seem to have misplaced his spine. He did however cosponser an anti torture amendment to the Defense Bill that was going to pass, which caused Bush to have the bill pulled rather than veto. I can not understand why he would support Bush after what Bush did to him in South Carolina. Perhaps thats what happened to his spine it was severed by the knife Bush plunged into his back.
"I think the only way we will see accountability is if we lean on our elected representatives to have this investigated all the way to the top. And if our elected reps actually grew a spine and did it." -- lostlogic
--------------------------------------------------------------
I'll ask you pretty the same question which I asked of Tommy elsewhere in this thread -- a question to which he has yet to offer any response. How do you propose that we motivate the American people to "lean on our elected representatives to have this investigated" without releasing the pictures?
Let's face facts -- the "old" batch of pictures, which has been out for well over a year now, apparently wasn't disturbing enough to accomplish this. You said yourself, and I quote, "I think the majority school of thought is this was a handful of "bad apples" and they have been and are being punished...it is probably a pessimistic view I have but I think the majority pay lip service to the abuse being bad but don’t really care because in their eyes the prisoners are/were the enemy." Frankly, I'm not at all surprised by this -- in a war, it's virtually a foregone conclusion that each side will be tempted to dehumanize the other (the irony being that they often dehumanize themselves in the process). So tell me this, if you can...where is the motivation for the American people to hold their elected officials accountable for this? What reason is there to believe that this will change any time soon? None whatsoever, as far as I can tell.
Can I guarantee that releasing the "new" batch of pictures will change this? No, I can't -- I'll concede that. However, I believe (or at least, I hope) that there are some things which the American people would consider unacceptable under any circumstances. We saw an example of this recently in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Many Americans saw the slow response as being far below the standards of what was acceptable and were motivated to demand answers -- so much so that Bush did something rather unprecendented for his administration and acknowledged some share of the responsibility. Why? Perhaps in part because the effects of Katrina were made visible -- it was simply not possible for most people to ignore what was being shown in the papers and on television without sacrificing some of their own humanity in the process.
The fact is that you can put out every last photo with all their inhumane treatment, their salacious and graphic nature and keep it up until the American people become so sickened by it, then they begin to hold those responsible accountable? So it goes like this "OK, here's more, and more, are you fed up yet?....OK, more, more, more.........OK, that's it, no more"
The truth is the kool aid drinkers on both sides will defend their positions without fail - and the rest of the country may become slightly outraged as they travel to their children's soccer games, or watch "Survivor", or get ready for their holiday vacations, whatever. The point is it probably won't make much difference in most people's lives so they will treat it as such. Putting more photos out there only endangers our soldiers, that is what we know will happen.
Tommy, I can't help but notice that you still haven't answered the challenge that I've presented to you and to Lostlogic. Since both of you have stated that you want the Bush administration to be held fully accountable for what happened at Abu Ghraib, how do you suggest or propose that this be achieved without releasing the pictures? You seem to be under the impression that the Bush administration is somehow going to spontaneously and voluntarily agree to conduct a full investigation when just about everything that has transpired to date indicates otherwise. To all appearances, the Bush administration does not do accountability. If (and I stress if) the Bush administration ever does conduct a full investigation, it will almost certainly do so only under duress. The only way to accomplish this is to put their feet in the fire, metaphorically speaking -- and as long as the American people continue to sit idly by and feign ignorance, this just won't happen.
You yourself said, and I quote -- "the rest of the country may become slightly outraged as they travel to their children's soccer games, or watch "Survivor", or get ready for their holiday vacations, whatever. The point is it probably won't make much difference in most people's lives so they will treat it as such." Am I to conclude that this is something to be proud of?
bluestocking,
How much clearer can I be? You keep saying "how do you suggest or propose that this be achieved without releasing the pictures?" Earth to bluestocking - pictures have already been released!! If you can't understand that by now then I cannot help you any further.
If you want to have a discussion without your blinders on, fine. I have already said that a full investigation holding all those responsible accountable is the way to go - and at a less sensitive and more appropriate time, you can then salivate over every last picture being released. For now, it is more important we keep our soldiers in harms way more safe, than satisfying your Bush bashing obsession.
"Earth to bluestocking - pictures have already been released!! If you can't understand that by now then I cannot help you any further." -- Tommy
--------------------------------------------------------------
With all due respect, Tommy, what I can't understand is how simply resorting to insult is an acceptable answer to my challenge. If you will take the time to read the posts in which I issued my challenge to you and to Lostlogic (since it appears that didn't really bother to do that originally) you will notice that I am well aware of the fact that one batch of pictures were released last year -- so your attack is not only inappropriate, but also unfounded.
I tip my hat to Lostlogic, who made an effort to address my question and provide some possible answers without having to resort to insult -- pity that you apparently can't do the same. My challenge stands -- if you have no concrete suggestions or proposals to offer with regard to how to ensure that a full investigation is in fact conducted at some point, saying that you want one strikes me as not much better than wishful thinking.
My challenge stands -- if you have no concrete suggestions or proposals to offer with regard to how to ensure that a full investigation is in fact conducted at some point, saying that you want one strikes me as not much better than wishful thinking.
*********************************
bluestocking,
I imagine if I was in Congress chairing the ethics or foreign relations committee, then I could ensure the investigation will be done. However, I am only a citizen so your challenge is unwarranted, for me, at least. What we can do as Americans is what we always do when we want our elected officials to act - write them, call them, email them, protest, alert the media, etc - there are a number of things, of course. I have said that a full and non partisan investigation is necessary, obviously I cannot guarantee it. If you were insulted, then I apologize.
"However, I am only a citizen so your challenge is unwarranted, for me, at least. What we can do as Americans is what we always do when we want our elected officials to act - write them, call them, email them, protest, alert the media, etc - there are a number of things, of course."
Tommy, if this all rests in the hands of the people, then you must admit that the effort of making more people aware of the scandal, and others more aware of a possibly higher degree of atrocity would be helped by the release of the photos. You yourself provide an excellent reason why these photos should be released, and have explained why not doing so is indeed giving the administration a pass.
Now, if you would just stop clinging to this planted axiom of yours that releasing the photos definitely, absolutely puts our troops at much greater risk, then you might start to change your mind about this issue. Is it possible that it would embolden the enemy? Yes, it is possible. Are they pretty determined as it is? Yes! Are they already fully aware of the torture already? I can't imagine they aren't! We have two groups of people we could be talking about;terrorists don't really need more emboldenment, because they irrationally hate us and our freedoms (right?), and insurgents are fighting us because we've invaded their country, which is a motivation in and of itself. Now I think I remember you arguing that we can't make the terrorists like us;we can't reason with them and we can't appease them. But, you seem to believe that our actions accelerate their behavior and make them hate us more. So, if that is the case, where we can never make the situation better but only make it worse, then the only option left is to kill every last one of them (forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think you've said words to that effect as well). If that is the only solution then it doesn't much matter how angry they are, because the instinct for self-preservation is the ultimate motivation to fight, and the "risk" side of releasing the photos becomes fairly moot.
Tommy, I can't help but notice that you still haven't answered the challenge that I've presented to you and to Lostlogic. Since both of you have stated that you want the Bush administration to be held fully accountable for what happened at Abu Ghraib, how do you suggest or propose that this be achieved without releasing the pictures?
***
Well I answered your question so perhaps you will return the favor. How do you think the release of these photos will hold the bush administration accountable? Do you think they will provide any proof that anyone other then those IN the pictures are responsible? These are pictures of the attacks. Now if you were talking about releasing documents that showed how it went up the ladder of command then you may be on to something…but these are PHOTOS of the actual crimes not documentation proving a conspiracy to promote and condone these acts.
After reading your post, I'll concede that the "new" photographs would probably not be sufficient to provide conclusive evidence that higher authorities were involved if what they depict was carried out by the same people as before (Graner, England, et al.). If they depict other people, however, I think this might prompt at least some people to start questioning the claim that it was simply a few "bad apples". I also can't deny that there's truth to some of what Tommy has said -- people such as Rush Limbaugh who are determined to see this as an isolated incident or "really not that bad" will probably continue to do so even in the face of the "new" pictures. To be honest, I wasn't even factoring them into the equation -- they're already a lost cause (and in more ways than one, perhaps). My thought was more for those who might be "on the fence" with regard to this issue -- people disturbed by the idea that their government may have engaged in torture, but not yet to a point at which they start asking questions because what they've seen so far depicts psychological rather than physical torture (failing to take into account the fact that attacking another person's mind can be, in its own way, more brutal and more harmful than merely attacking their body).
Call me a cynic if you will -- personally, I think every cynic (myself included) is a disillusioned idealist at heart -- but if a full investigation into this matter is ever conducted, I for one will be very surprised. In my opinion, if it ends up being swept under the proverbial rug for the most part as I expect it to be, it will be at least in part because the American people allowed it to happen.
Call me a cynic if you will -- personally, I think every cynic (myself included) is a disillusioned idealist at heart -- but if a full investigation into this matter is ever conducted, I for one will be very surprised. In my opinion, if it ends up being swept under the proverbial rug for the most part as I expect it to be, it will be at least in part because the American people allowed it to happen. by bluestocking
***
I would probably have to join you at the cynic’s anonymous meeting. And there is probably a lot of truth to your “disillusioned idealist at heart” theory.
I agree the probability of any further investigation into the role the higher ups played in this is slim. They think they did their investigation and they found a nice tidy way to minimize it by prosecuting the ‘bad apples”. If the pictures did show new perps I would hazard a guess they would just say more "bad apples".
If an in-depth investigation is ever conducted it will probably be many years down the road when privilege and classified is expired and we get to see the bigger picture. Think about history—rarely do you learn the truth until years later when it is looked at in retrospect and with additional knowledge.
I'll ask you pretty the same question which I asked of Tommy elsewhere in this thread -- a question to which he has yet to offer any response. How do you propose that we motivate the American people to "lean on our elected representatives to have this investigated" without releasing the pictures?
****
Perhaps if the pictures showed additional perpetrators the outcome would be different then we have already seen…the prosecution of the “handful”. Please remember the ones who would have jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute these cases have seen these pictures. It is just the general public that has not.
As I stated earlier in my rather pessimistic view I think the majority will not push to have a different outcome then the prosecution of the “handful.” So like most things it is up to the vocal few that do feel passionate about this to apply loud, vocal pressure on our representatives.
I would suggest we start by letting them know we want them to pass this bill that included McCain’s amendment that the senate just voted overwhelmingly to include in the spending bill. I would also suggest we keep the pressure on so that if the President does veto it there is enough bi-partisan support to override the veto.
I am sure you are aware most change does not happen because the overwhelming majority believes in it AND fight for it. It happens because vocal activists make a big stink and pressure the law makers. I would hazard a guess that a large portion of our society is too apathetic to fight for things—case in point look at voter turn out.
I hope this answered your questions.
Why should the photos and videos be released?
The administration and its whores in the media continue to deny that people have been tortured. They claim it was "a few bad apples" or nothing more than spirited hi-jinx.
However, those that have seen the unreleased materials know that these excuses will no longer suffice.
Meanwhile, the administration stands firmly opposed to legislation prohibiting torture. It seems the real reason that they oppose the release of these photos and videos is that they want to continue to use torture.
It is not the photos and videos that is adding fuel to the fire, but the actions and policies of the administration. The photos and videos hopefully will help stop the practice of torture by the US.
It is not the photos and videos that is adding fuel to the fire, but the actions and policies of the administration. The photos and videos hopefully will help stop the practice of torture by the US.-by Craig
***
I believe that the majority of the public are aware of the torture that occurred and those that consider it “frat boy pranks” will continue to think that way no matter how many pictures you parade out.
The people who would pass legislation with respect to torture HAVE seen these photos. The pictures will not change the administrations story that these were isolated incidents by a few bad apples. I don’t think releasing the photos to the public will accomplish what you believe it will and I think the harm it would cause to our troops needs to be considered and weighed against the benefit of releasing these photos for the viewing pleasure of the public.
Sometimes the truth hurts. In the short-term, our troops may be harmed by the release of further evidence that the US has been torturing prisoners, although I think that our enemies don't need any more reasons to want to attack us.
In the long run, the US will be stronger if it condemns the use of torture. It may also lead to better intelligence, since many experts believe information gained through torture is unreliable.
If you are right, and the people and the government are willing to continue the use of torture, then it is a sad time for America.
Sometimes the truth hurts. In the short-term, our troops may be harmed by the release of further evidence that the US has been torturing prisoners, although I think that our enemies don't need any more reasons to want to attack us. --by Craig
***
I have a problem with your careless disregard for our troops and the short-term harm you seem to dismiss as unimportant. I agree our enemies don’t NEED a reason to attack us and the will manufacture a reason if need be but I do think they will use this to their advantage and to the detriment of our troops.
My main reason for siding with the non-release is that I don’t think we will benefit from the release to the public in any way. Take a look at this administration and their actions…I doubt the release of photos THEY and our legislative body have ALREADY SEEN will make any difference to this administration or apparently our elected representatives.
If there is no real benefit, other then reinforcing those of us who already found the earlier pictures and detailed accounts reprehensible, then why add to the precarious position our troops are already in and further harm our international standing then this administration already has.
If I believed there was any chance that something good could come out of the release of these pictures to the public then I would re-think my position but I just don’t see it.
My careless disregard for the troops...SCREW YOU!
I wasn't the involved in committing acts of torture, justifying torture, or covering up torture. It is the administration and those who defend them which who have repeatedly shown careless disregard for the troops.
My careless disregard for the troops...SCREW YOU! -by Craig
****
I think your own words would be appropriately thrown back at you in response to this lovely reply by you.
“Sometimes the truth hurts.” --by Craig
Your "logic" is "lost" on me.
Again, the Iraqis know we torture them. Americans don't know and should.
"If I believed there was any chance that something good could come out of the release of these pictures to the public then I would re-think my position but I just don’t see it."
Those that forget history are doomed to repeat it. We have seen the efforts to hide and trivialize the torture, which certainly seems to be motivated by hopes that people will ignore and forget it. The release of the photos helps to curb these apologist efforts.
As for this harming the troops, if we believe that the Iraqis know about all of this anyway, and they don't really need any more reasons to hate us, then the risk vs. reward analysis would seem to favor the release. The rationale of the government and the apologists seems to be "you can't mention the things we do, because it will further endanger the troops we already sent into harm's way". I think that's nonsense. If this proves to create further danger, then that is on the head of the administration anyway. The seeming excuse of "these troops wouldn't have died if you hadn't demanded disclosure regarding our own actions" simply doesn't fly. I will disagree with you that accepting a possible short-term risk to troops is "careless disregard". While I don't want to see any more troops harmed, I think it's nonsensical to give the administration a pass based on that possibility, while any results of that possibility are their responsibility anyway. If the administration's actions put the troops at risk and show disregard for them, then holding them accountable is not the same thing.
brabantio,
You say not releasing more of the same photos somehow gives this administration a "pass" is ridiculous. I, nor anyone here, have ever suggested that is the reason for not releasing more pictures. That is a hollow argument and you know it. This administration should be held accountable for every last photo, but how does releasing every last photo for the salacious appetite of the public and our enemies accomplish anything close to that? The answer > it doesn't.....it's pure Bush bash/gotcha. If you need more evidence of that just read your posts, among others - they are so riddled with contempt for Bush it blinds them of good sense, even when it comes to the safety of our soldiers.
That's sad.
"You say not releasing more of the same photos somehow gives this administration a "pass" is ridiculous."
If it's the "same photos", then what cause does anyone have to expect backlash? That makes no sense. Old news rarely prompts new action, as a valid reason anyway (and if they make it a phony excuse then they could make up something else anyway - which effectively negates it as a risk factor).
"This administration should be held accountable for every last photo, but how does releasing every last photo for the salacious appetite of the public and our enemies accomplish anything close to that?"
Without the release of all the photos, by what stretch of the imagination do you expect this administration to be held accountable for them? Have you lived in this country for the last four years? Even with the release of some we hear that these are akin to "fraternity pranks", no big deal really.
"If you need more evidence of that just read your posts, among others - they are so riddled with contempt for Bush it blinds them of good sense, even when it comes to the safety of our soldiers."
I have contempt for Bush because of his actions. I dare you to show otherwise, or show how I have been unfair to him in any way. As for good sense and the safety of our soldiers, if those are really major concerns of yours you should be railing against the man who put their safety at risk without any good sense behind it. I don't want to see another soldier die, period. However, at what I feel is a minimal risk in this scenario, the administration should not be able to cover up anything by blackmailing people with the notion of the safety of the troops. If you, personally, had the choice of whether the Abu Ghraib story came out at all or not, what would you choose? This is a logical extension of your argument, if you truly believe that these photos should not be released, would you not also say that the entire story should have been covered up for the sake of the troops? Perhaps then you believe that somehow people would be held accountable even without public scrutiny, through the honor system. Everything will be fine in the end, because the Bush administration holds itself accountable for everything, right?
While I don't want to see any more troops harmed, I think it's nonsensical to give the administration a pass based on that possibility, while any results of that possibility are their responsibility anyway. If the administration's actions put the troops at risk and show disregard for them, then holding them accountable is not the same thing.-by brabantio
***
I agree with your opening with regards to history. That is why I don’t believe these photos should be destroyed or kept hidden for ever. I do think there will be an appropriate time when the benefit will outweigh the negative—I just don’t think that time is now.
I don’t agree that we don’t have a responsibility to our troops just because it wasn’t our idea to send them into harms way. I have a great deal of appreciation and admiration for what these men and women do for our country and us. I think it is incumbent upon those of us not putting ourselves on the line for our country to support those that do. My responsibility does not end because I do not agree with this war or this administration. Contrary to what many on the right say they did not ask to be put in harms way—they asked to serve their country; there is a distinction in my book.
I think the abuse HAS been brought to light with the previous photos and accounts and I don’t think it serves any purpose to release MORE at this time that out weights the troop’s safety.
I do understand that you and others think the benefits outweigh the risk to our troops but I don’t see what the actual benefit IS of releasing them now. If it is just an issue of transparency when we already know about the abuse then I think that is not much of a benefit to put our troops at greater risk.
"I have a great deal of appreciation and admiration for what these men and women do for our country and us. I think it is incumbent upon those of us not putting ourselves on the line for our country to support those that do."
So do I. The issue is;do we let the administration extort us with the idea that to expose these actions means not supporting the troops? I honestly don't think this is anything new to insurgents or terrorists, so I think the additional risk is something of a bogeyman anyway.
"I think the abuse HAS been brought to light with the previous photos and accounts and I don’t think it serves any purpose to release MORE at this time that out weights the troop’s safety."
Again, I really don't think that risk is very great. It's the effect in this country that will change, as it will severely curtail the efforts of Rush and others to minimize and dismiss torture. If it's more of the same, then where is the harm?
"I do understand that you and others think the benefits outweigh the risk to our troops but I don’t see what the actual benefit IS of releasing them now."
I think the point is, if not now, when? We have such a short attention span in this country that to bring this up in the future (and when then? After the war on terror is over?) loses an incredible amount of its effect. Let's be honest here;how many stories have we seen buried in the media? Do we really believe that this subject will see the light of day years from now?
"This is a new tactic. Don't you think the victims faces will be pixelated? If the victims recognize their own abuse by some chance, I would like them to use this evidence to extend a lawsuit against our government. They should have that right as well. Until this information is out there, they have little recourse. I don't think they can rely on vivid accounts to make their cases as well either." by openmind
Wow, my jaw dropped when I read this post. You think they should bring a lawsuit against our government? What if they win, who pays? YOU, ME, AND EVERY OTHER TAXPAYER OUT THERE! What happened was terrible, those who participated should be punished (which some of them already have been, but probably not all), and everyone should move on. Give me a break.
"Sometimes the truth hurts. In the short-term, our troops may be harmed by the release of further evidence that the US has been torturing prisoners, although I think that our enemies don't need any more reasons to want to attack us." --by Craig
How cold. I bet you would not say that about the troops if you were one of them. I've got friends over there, and your blatant disregard for their lives sickens me. Obviously, from your responses to others on this forum, that does not seem to matter to you. Don't get angry, just admit you said something wrong and move on. Don't be like the press and the ACLU, and continue to beat this dead horse.
"Wow, my jaw dropped when I read this post. You think they should bring a lawsuit against our government? What if they win, who pays? YOU, ME, AND EVERY OTHER TAXPAYER OUT THERE! What happened was terrible, those who participated should be punished (which some of them already have been, but probably not all), and everyone should move on. Give me a break." --lefty99
--------------------------------------------------------
From what I read about these pictures, these people may have every right to bring a lawsuit. Then again, we could only know for sure if the photos and videos were actually released.
As to the taxpayers footing the bill...Is this the first time you have considered these consequences of what happened at Abu Ghraib? Does it have to hit you in the pocket-book before you seriously consider what was done was wrong possibly?
"I don’t think releasing the photos to the public will accomplish what you believe it will and I think the harm it would cause to our troops needs to be considered and weighed against the benefit of releasing these photos for the viewing pleasure of the public." --lostlogic
------------------------------------------------
Nonetheless, our society has certain standards of transparency. The administration would rather blackmail every judge with this argument to keep us from ever knowing the full extent of what is being done in our name around the world.
Different tales of abuse keep pooring out of the region. There is a new story of abuse today.
Nonetheless, our society has certain standards of transparency.-by open_mind
***
And where does the safety and well-being of our troops land on this principled list of standards we have. And please don’t dodge the question with the standard deflection of: the administration put them at risk by sending them into this ill-advised war. I agree it was a dumb move and put our troops needlessly at risk. But they are there NOW and our responsibility to them does not END with protesting this war and the administrations actions.
Would the NAZI's be justified in keeping a tight lid on the Holocaust in the name of protecting their troops?
It is hyperbolic to compare the two, I know, but both our government and the NAZI government had a similar interest in preventing the truth from being completely known.
Soldiers sign on to fight for their country AND its values. They realize that the price they may pay for their defending our values is death.
If the soldiers are willing to die for our values, don't you think the values might be a little bit more important? Would it honor our soldiers if we disregard our values (supposedly) for their sake? What would the soldiers be fighting for then?
If the soldiers are willing to die for our values, don't you think the values might be a little bit more important? Would it honor our soldiers if we disregard our values (supposedly) for their sake? What would the soldiers be fighting for then?-by open_mind
***
Well you already answered your own question about the comparison to NAZI’s so I will not respond by explaining the differences you are already aware of.
I do not advocate for non-release to support the administration. I do it to advocate for our troops and because releasing to the public will not change the policies of THIS administration. So it is a no-win proposition for our troops and a win-win for our enemies.
I am a realist I don’t find much use for ignoring practical application in favor of the theory (no matter how sound and noble the theory is) I don’t disagree with your value and transparency view of the issue. I just think sometimes other’s safety trumps your noble cause; especially when not much will be gained by releasing the additional pictures to the public.
"I just think sometimes other’s safety trumps your noble cause; especially when not much will be gained by releasing the additional pictures to the public."...by lostlogic
Well said lostlogic. THIS topic was discussed her ad nauseam a few months ago (probably before you arrived here). We all went up&down, back&forth about it and NEVER came to any AGREEMENT.
I personally FAIL to see ANYTHING positive in releasing MORE of the SAME type of photos. I'm afraid THIS all comes down to the Left HOPING it will HURT Bush....when in fact IT will more than likely ONLY hurt our troops.
"Again, the Iraqis know we torture them. Americans don't know and should."...by Craig
Craig's SILLY argument that the American Public is NOT aware of what went on at Abu Ghraib and MUST see more photos to UNDERSTAND... is just pure B.S.
I personally FAIL to see ANYTHING positive in releasing MORE of the SAME type of photos. I'm afraid THIS all comes down to the Left HOPING it will HURT Bush....when in fact IT will more than likely ONLY hurt our troops.
************************
Is the litmus test for what can be seen by the public based upon what the outcome may or may not be?
"Is the litmus test for what can be seen by the public based upon what the outcome may or may not be?"...by rjc
It's been SEEN already...how MANY re-runs do YOU need?
And YES sometimes the "outcome" SHOULD be taken into consideration.
jeter,
I personally don't need any. I have a pretty good mental picture.
I'm just wondering where the line gets drawn and who gets to draw it. How long before we start to say: "Oh we can't PRINT that story because nothing positive will come of it."
"I personally don't need any. I have a pretty good mental picture.
I'm just wondering where the line gets drawn and who gets to draw it. How long before we start to say: "Oh we can't PRINT that story because nothing positive will come of it."...by rjc
================
Well I guess we have to look at not JUST whether a POSITIVE will come of it, BUT what NEGATIVE might be the RESULT of it. National Security is where THIS dilemma is MOST likely to surface....and I'm honestly NOT sure "who" SHOULD "draw the line"? Ordinarily one might give this task to the administration...I think in the "old days" BEFORE politics became as POLARIZED as it is today, MOST of us might have AGREED with that.
Of course the Pentagon would be another option...NOT that anyone TRUSTS them anymore either.
You know what rjc, we are living through perhaps the MOST distrustful time in our history. So I'm not sure who should make such a decision (only that it will have to occasionally be made)...I'd be interested in your input.
Typically I'm for full disclosure. Nobody gets to decide - we see it all. I understand that there are gov't secrets and national security yada yada that should never be disclosed.
In this circumstance we're talking about evidence that everyone knows exists and has a good idea of what it contains. So the argument on one hand is: If we already KNOW what it IS, then why does it need to be withheld. On the other hand we have the argument: It could potentially inflame the situation in Iraq (or here, or anywhere in the world) and people could be killed.
Intellectually I would say release the photos. On a gut level I feel uncomfortable with that decision, because I understand that it could be a catalyst for increased violence.
If I was forced to decide I think I would go with my gut and not release them (as much as I hate to say it). And I think I would be more sure of that answer if I felt right wingers struggled with it as much as I have. If I felt they knew (and feared) the implications of such as decision as much I have.
So there you have it.
Is the litmus test for what can be seen by the public based upon what the outcome may or may not be?
**************************
The litmus test should be what is in our national security and the safety of our citizens, namely our fighting soldiers in Iraq. Releasing more photos is in direct conflict with both conditions, regardless of your political persuasion or feelings about this War.
"...releasing to the public will not change the policies of THIS administration" by lostlogic
So, when your father raped you, you didn't tell anyone because it wasn't going to change his position on raping you.
So, when your father raped you, you didn't tell anyone because it wasn't going to change his position on raping you.-by Craig
***
One: My father never raped me.
Two: If you can not distinguish between the two then my “logic” really will be “lost” on YOU.
"...releasing to the public will not change the policies of THIS administration"
Probably not; their corruption is ingrained. However, it might lead to their defeat in 2006 and 2008 if enough Republicans realize that they've been duped.
"I don’t disagree with your value and transparency view of the issue. I just think sometimes other’s safety trumps your noble cause; especially when not much will be gained by releasing the additional pictures to the public." --lostlogic
---------------------------------------------------------
It is my fear that our abandonment of the values of transparency and accountability in the name of national security we are causing our soldiers, who die, to do it in vain for values we apparently no longer hold to be true.
There is and always will be a price to be paid by sticking to your principles. It will always be easier to throw the principles out as some here appear to be all too willing to do.
Have a good day.
It is my fear that our abandonment of the values of transparency and accountability in the name of national security we are causing our soldiers, who die, to do it in vain for values we apparently no longer hold to be true.
****************************
open_mind,
I would agree with you 100% if this entire issue had somehow been repressed or buried from public knowledge - but that is the entire point - IT HAS NOT! For you to infer that prohibiting piling on photo after photo after photo is abandoning our values is disingenuous.
"For you to infer that prohibiting piling on photo after photo after photo is abandoning our values is disingenuous." --Tommy
--------------------------------------------------------
How many photos would you have had released? One, two, fifty? Would those few pictures provide an adequate picture of what really went on? You are the one being disingenous and I think you know it. The scandal should be judged in its entirety. Anything less is the Reader's Digest Condensed Version of what really happened. I prefer my information undigested and/or uncensored.
Allowing this administration or any other to pick and choose or limit what we get to see guarantees we will not see the whole picture. Anything less than a full accounting is censorship. There is no way around that. Either we are dedicated to transparency or we are not. I already know where you stand.
There is and always will be a price to be paid by sticking to your principles. It will always be easier to throw the principles out as some here appear to be all too willing to do. Have a good day.-by open_mind –
***
Can’t say much to dispute what you say here. My practicality is considered by many to be a major flaw—sometimes I agree. I’m not sure I have ever viewed anything in absolutes. Having strong views and principles is admirable but I think the certitude that many have is what causes much of our problems. I don’t think I have ever had that certitude about a subject. I guess that is considered a character flaw but it has served me well so far.
FYI, Rush agrees with you. My moderate position is the only thing Rush holds in lower regard then a liberal’s.(-:
Don't turn this into an argument about certainty vs. ambiguity. I believe in the dialectic and compromise. There are many principles that I hold dear. Philosophers call them 1st principles. You may not recognize it, but I am sure you have them as well.
Transparency in government used to be a first principle in this country. That being a principle on which many of our other principles rest.
I take these first principles to be very important. I have many other principles that may be less important and by that I mean they may change from time to time. I admire your flexibility to a point, but if we let some of these major principles go, much else unwittingly goes with it.
Allowing this administration or any other to pick and choose or limit what we get to see guarantees we will not see the whole picture. Anything less than a full accounting is censorship. There is no way around that. Either we are dedicated to transparency or we are not. I already know where you stand.-by open_mind
***
Where does your belief in transparency end.
For example: do you then feel it was appropriate for the public to be told that Wilson’s wife was a covert operative so we could have the “whole picture” with which to judge the credibility of his reports?( the right's position) Or do you, like me, believe the risk to Ms. Plame and others she has come in contact with in her job outweighed the public’s right to know.
I would be interested to see if your dedication to transparency are as absolute as you seem to be saying here.
"Where does your belief in transparency end.
For example: do you then feel it was appropriate for the public to be told that Wilson’s wife was a covert operative so we could have the “whole picture” with which to judge the credibility of his reports?( the right's position) Or do you, like me, believe the risk to Ms. Plame and others she has come in contact with in her job outweighed the public’s right to know.
I would be interested to see if your dedication to transparency are as absolute as you seem to be saying here." --lostlogic
---------------------------------------------------------
This is not a debate about absolutes. Principles often compete with each other. I am dedicated to the principle of transparency where I believe the government is trying to hide, deny or minimize their mistakes.
There are fairly obvious examples where the government can keep secrets. Our national security apparatus could not function without some secrecy. In the case of Valerie Plame, our leaders felt it was so important to keep our agents identities secret, they passed a specific law to protect the identity of our agents. That law was likely violated by a leaker.
In the case of the Abu Ghraib photos, the government is using national security as an excuse to keep information hidden. I don't think the national security excuse should be used that way.
Many people use the argument that nothing is to be gained by the release of photos. I disagree. The truth is the most valuable thing in the universe. We will be closer to it after the release of the photos than without the release of them. I think that is what many fear.
In the case of the Abu Ghraib photos, the government is using national security as an excuse to keep information hidden. I don't think the national security excuse should be used that way.
**********************************
How absurd? Using national security as an excuse?
Let's see, which is more important;
1) To not release every last photo after many are already public knowledge and the abuse is well known on every newspaper in the country because to do so would severly compromise the lives of our soldiers, undeniably.
2) To release every last photo to satisfy the morbid curiosity of the public and our enemies, Al Jazeera, Al Queda to use as a recruiting tool, anti American hatred increases throughout the world and most of all to stick it to Bush!
You decide which is better for our country. I already have.
"1) To not release every last photo after many are already public knowledge and the abuse is well known on every newspaper in the country because to do so would severly compromise the lives of our soldiers, undeniably." --Tommy
--------------------------------------------------------
Utter speculation. How many soldiers died as a direct result of the last batch of photos? Can you prove a direct correlation? Can you prove they would not have died because the insurgents wouldn't have found another reason/excuse? --open_mind
~~
"2) To release every last photo to satisfy the morbid curiosity of the public and our enemies, Al Jazeera, Al Queda to use as a recruiting tool, anti American hatred increases throughout the world and most of all to stick it to Bush!" --Tommy
--------------------------------------------------------
You seem to think these photos are damaging to the Bush administration. Why? Is Bush in one of the photos? It appears your main objection is the possible negative impact on the administration. And you accuse others of partisanship?
People may not like us as a result of our releasing the pictures. How do you know that other people may admire our commitment to honesty and facing our mistakes head on? Most parts of the world, they do what you advocate, sweep it under the rug. It would be nice to be a good example for a change.
"How absurd? Using national security as an excuse?" --Tommy
--------------------------------------------------------
This wins the award for most naive quote of the day.
"How absurd? Using national security as an excuse?" --Tommy
*******************
This wins the award for most naive quote of the day....by open_mind
****************
****************
No, I think that this below, from open_mind, wins the award for the biggest spin/lie of the day, considering I have said over and over what little interest I have in protecting this administration, but rather protecting the soldiers - what is teling however, is that your hatred for Bush trumps your concern for the lives of our soldiers;
"It appears your main objection is the possible negative impact on the administration"
Give just one example of my hatred of the Bush administration. Disagreement does not equal hatred by the way.
Just because you do not contain the necessary wisdom to argue your point intelligently does not make the other person's motives irrational.
Wishful thinking on your part.
Many people use the argument that nothing is to be gained by the release of photos. I disagree. The truth is the most valuable thing in the universe. We will be closer to it after the release of the photos than without the release of them. I think that is what many fear. by open_mind - Wednesday October 5, 2005 05:16:47 PM EST - reply to this comment - flag this comment - read
***
I would argue this IS a debate about absolutes.
The truth is out there for any who care to know or do something about it. Our legislature was given a private showing and is aware of the abuse and its extent. The public was made aware through pictures and accounts by the very people who were given this showing (including Rumsfeld).
However you and others feel we need to see MORE and your dedication to absolute transparency no matter the repercussions does not allow for weighing the risk. In your opinion absolute transparency is worth the lives of the very people who volunteer to serve and protect us and the fact that the truth is already out there is unimportant as long as you get to see EVERY disgusting image. Do you really need to see the picture to understand what has been vividly described already?
And speaking for myself, I don’t fear the truth. I fear the reckless disregard for our troops in order to further a political agenda.
I will ask again. What do you realistically think the outcome of showing MORE pictures would be? What end result do you see happening with the release of additional photos that is more important then someone’s life.
"The public was made aware through pictures and accounts by the very people who were given this showing" --Lostlogic
--------------------------------------------------------
You seem to be under the false impression that an "account" is just as good at depicting the truth as the actual pictures themselves. Do you listen to all of your sports, news, music, etc. on the radio? Do you even own a television? If you do, I think you would understand the advantage that pictures bring in describing something. It is quite spectacular, you should really check it out.
I know that if you want to know the truth about something, pictures and video are much more effective at conveying what happened than "accounts" ever will be. Why do you think the federal government fought CNN from showing pictures of dead bodies in New Orleans and does not allow pictures of dead soldiers (even in caskets). This administration understands the power of media and is doing everything it can to supress and insulate the public any unsanitary images.
As I have said before, I want the truth, but it appears you need it regurgitated in the form of "accounts" from your supposed betters.
~~
"In your opinion absolute transparency is worth the lives of the very people who volunteer to serve and protect us and the fact that the truth is already out there is unimportant as long as you get to see EVERY disgusting image. Do you really need to see the picture to understand what has been vividly described already?
And speaking for myself, I don’t fear the truth. I fear the reckless disregard for our troops in order to further a political agenda. " --lostlogic
--------------------------------------------------
I challenge you to backup your claims that lives will definitely be lost as a direct result of publishing MORE photos. Is this some sort of unfounded assumption on your part?
You appear to be conceding there is a substantial difference between the accounts and the pictures themselves. Enough that massive violence will result in your view. So much for those "vivid accounts" eh?
~~
"I will ask again. What do you realistically think the outcome of showing MORE pictures would be? What end result do you see happening with the release of additional photos that is more important then someone’s life." --lostlogic
----------------------------------------------------------
I make no real assumptions what will happen. I will leave that to you and the pundits. Many things could happen or not. I do however, doubt they will be as absolutely earth-shattering as I believe you do. The initial photos have actually had the effect of inocculating the public (both at home and abroad) against most for what will come.
by open_mind - Wednesday October 5, 2005 08:33:26 PM EST
Let see where to start…
Um yes I have enough intelligence that I don’t need someone to draw (or show) me a picture to grasp a concept. Perhaps you don’t share that talent.
Don’t know who you are referring to as “[my] betters” so I will just ignore that foolish comment.
Where did I “concede” that there is substantial difference between the accounts and the pictures? Are you hallucinating now?
If you concede that the public has been inoculated to what is to come then what, other then your prurient interest, makes you demand to see pictures of rapes in order to fully understand rape?
Again I repeat what do you hope to gain that you would take the CHANCE of this bringing more harm to our troops? Or don’t you even know or care beyond the partisan bashing advantage you will get from the public viewing of these additional photos.
"Um yes I have enough intelligence that I don’t need someone to draw (or show) me a picture to grasp a concept. Perhaps you don’t share that talent." --lostlogic
---------------------------------------------------------
The key word you mention is concept. A concept is an abstraction of what really took place. My argument is simply that in the court of world opinion on the subject of the Abu Ghraib abuse, we should all be able to look at the raw data and come up with our own opinions on the subject. The problem with concepts and abstractions are that they insulate us from reality. We get a hazy idea of what happened. This is why video evidence is the most compelling of any evidence in a court of law as well.
~~
"Where did I “concede” that there is substantial difference between the accounts and the pictures? Are you hallucinating now?" --lostlogic
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, but I concluded that since the limited accounts of what happened are already in the public realm, people who want to know about these events and even presumably the terrorists already are aware of what happened. Releasing the actual pictures and videos will make things worse in your view. Therefore there must be some information in the pictures and videos that is not equal to what the previous accounts discuss. You cannot claim that the whole truth is out there either using your own logic. If the whole truth is out there, how could things possibly get worse as you believe?
~~
"If you concede that the public has been inoculated to what is to come then what, other then your prurient interest, makes you demand to see pictures of rapes in order to fully understand rape?" --lostlogic
---------------------------------------------------------
This is really my last post on the subject. You keep asking the same questions, but I don't think you are really interested in reading the answers. Or perhaps they don't satisfy you, I will concede.
My only interest in the release of these photos are that they reveal more truth about what happened at the prison than any other medium. I hope you can see that.
If it makes you feel better to accuse me of wanting to see these photos out of prurient or partisan interest, you are entitled to that opinion. You seem to go to great lengths to be fair to the administration's point of view. I commend you for that. Just remember that other fair-minded people can reach different conclusions about the same thing based on a different set of principles and assumptions.
~~
"Again I repeat what do you hope to gain that you would take the CHANCE of this bringing more harm to our troops? Or don’t you even know or care beyond the partisan bashing advantage you will get from the public viewing of these additional photos." --lostlogic
----------------------------------------------------------
You and I can differ on the likelihood that our soldiers could be harmed. I will consider your argument here as well as everything else you have said. I care about the troops very much. I hope they all make it home in one piece. It is sad that you cannot see that either.
Let me just bring in one point on that though. One of the great abstractions in our society has become the concept of war itself. The combination of our recent historical military dominance and a lingering cultural romanticism about it clouds the reality of the hell that war really is. It makes it seductively easy to use it as a substitute for real diplomacy.
The same administration, that supposedly fears for the safety of our troops by the release of these photos, is the same administration that sent these soldiers into Iraq believing wholeheartedly that Saddam Hussein was going to gas them with chemical and biological agents. If they really care so much about the troops, why did they do that? And you question whether I care about the troops? I never wanted them there in the first place. Make no mistake, anything that happens to our troops over there is a direct result of them being over there.
You seem to go to great lengths to be fair to the administration's point of view.-by open_mind
The same administration, that supposedly fears for the safety of our troops by the release of these photos, is the same administration that sent these soldiers into Iraq believing wholeheartedly that Saddam Hussein was going to gas them with chemical and biological agents. If they really care so much about the troops, why did they do that? And you question whether I care about the troops? I never wanted them there in the first place. Make no mistake, anything that happens to our troops over there is a direct result of them being over there.-by open_mind
***
This post is a great example of why I feel you don’t see past the partisanship of the issue. This is not about them and us. I do not go to great lengths to be fair to the administration’s point of view. I go to great lengths to explain and defend MY point of view. If it happens to be similar to the administrations that makes little difference to me…I will not form my opinions based on this win at all costs partisan argument mentality. I won’t change my opinions simply because it “supports” the oppositions.
You obviously have a different opinion but do not try to pigeon-hole mine by lumping it in with the administrations.
FYI. I don’t necessarily think the administrations fight to keep these pictures out of the public domain is strictly altruistic. I think a large reason is their own self-interests; they don’t want to deal with the fall-out and they are basing their legal arguments on what I consider to be a strong and valid argument even if it is to partially protect their own butts. But just because I don’t agree with their selfish motives doesn’t mean I will go against what I believe to be right.
P.S. Did you happen to read about the Senate vote to include McCain's anti-torture amendment in the spending bill? Sounds like a good first step to declare where the US stands on torture. Hopefully it will pass both houses and the President won't veto it.
lostlogic - Thursday October 6, 2005 11:48:35 AM EST
Good news, they cant table a spending bill
Good news, they cant table a spending bill-by solon
***
I didn’t know that.
Let’s hope the amendment survives negotiations with the house. Things could still get buggered up once the extremely partisan house gets involved.
Yes, we know it was bad.
But we don't know yet HOW bad it was. We've heard stories of boys as young as 12 sodomized, little girls raped, and so on. The pictures and videotapes would fill in the blanks.
The Pentagon and Bush keeps trying (and failing) to sweep this all under the rug, and their all-too-willing propaganda outlets will bend over backwards to help the Bush people off the hook.
This goes all the way up the chain to Mr "Geneva Convention is quaint" Gonzalez, and Rummy the Dummy.
The US is not a dictatorship, it's long past time our troops and leaders be taken to task for acting like one.
There is a culture in the army that allowed this to happen. So far nothing has been done to change that culture, except to parade some of the worst abusers. Only the abusers with no political power were prosecuted. If anything the administration has encouraged extreme forms of interrogation that any rational person would label torture. If the army has in its hands someone like Zarqawi I would be willing to look the other way if the army needed immediate info from him. However too often I believe what happened at Abu Ghraib was done to innocents. People pointed out by their neighbors as a way of settling old scores. Perhaps the release of the photos will cause real change.
For those asking "Why?", here's part of the CNN story from MMFA's link: "U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein said that terrorists "do not need pretexts for their barbarism" and that suppressing the pictures would amount to submitting to blackkmail."
Funny that Rush would include the "pretext" part of the story but fail to mention the "blackmail" part.
And, since he's previously described the activities shown in the material as "brilliant" and "sort of like hazing", maybe Rush could help finance the production and marketing of tapes and CDs full of the juiciest parts.
They could have titles like "Hazings Gone Wild" or "They Scream, But They Really Like It"
Well put, Drafted.
The terrorists don't need an excuse, they will do what they will do, whether these pictures are made public or not. Rush is just using the "protect the troops" dodge to protect his boss from political embarassment. He and all the other conservatives who routinely do this should be ashamed. But then, feeling shame requires a conscience.....
The reason to publish these photos is to establish a pattern and inform the public that this administration has lied about this, like everything else surrounding the war. The best thing we can do for our troops, present and future, is to nip this Neocon junta in the bud before they can find another country to invade.
I can't believe some of these arguments against releasing the photos. Do we really want to encourage torture by signaling that the worst of the torture acts will be kept secret? What purpose does that serve? At a certain point, this is no longer about what people think of "the left" or the ACLU or "liberals" or whatever. It's about some serious principles that need to be preserved, not only in this country but in the world.
If the administration was really worried about the troops after this scandle, they would publicly and strongly get to the bottom of it. The would make a point of showing the world that torture is not a part of our values. We would set an example: Full disclosure and full accountablity - even if top officials are prosecuted. Instead the guilty will be promoted and the privates will do time.
Another possible scenerio is that the administration allows a sincere independent investigation that can hold the photos in private as evidence until the whole thing can be sorted out. That way the photos can be released at the same time justice is served.
Of course neither will happen. Our values are not clear and our war compromises our values further.
Another possible scenerio is that the administration allows a sincere independent investigation that can hold the photos in private as evidence until the whole thing can be sorted out. That way the photos can be released at the same time justice is served.
*********************************
Wonderful idea. I would be all for it.
Another possible scenerio is that the administration allows a sincere independent investigation that can hold the photos in private as evidence until the whole thing can be sorted out. That way the photos can be released at the same time justice is served.
*********************************
Wonderful idea. I would be all for it.
by tommy
****
I agree.
Unfortunately the administration does seem to value tortue and is obsessive about covering up its mistakes. A real independent effort at getting to the bottom of this would be worth postponing disclosure of the photos but that does not seem to be in the interest of this administration and their followers. Instead we go after privates and downplay the torture as pranks. A real investigation that would clarify our values would set an example for the world and help our troops. It is too bad that instead we want to make excuses.
eb,
I have no disagreement with your assessment of this administration's handling of this entire torture mess....it is inexcusable.
Keeping as many soldiers alive is the most important thing right now in our mission. Bush and his buddies can look forward to what lies ahead for them, at a later more appropriate date.
The sad observation for me is that this war and its execution have not shown us to be much different than any other nation. I want to believe we are exceptional and that are values and our actions show us to be worthy of our patriotism and sacrifices. The conflict between the safety of our troops and our values of freedom of expression, transparancy and loyal dissent is painful. I can't help but think that if we were doing an honorable thing in an honorable way we would not have this kind of conflict between our values and the troops. I want to believe that if we stick with our values our troops would be well served. Isn't that what they fight to protect anyway?
It's been heartbreaking. Our soldiers one the whole are absolutely exceptional. But, in my opinion, the mission started breaking down (in terms of their behavior) simply when (and because) the mission became virtually incoherent, e.g., ironically after "mission accomplished".
Once a decision was made to invade, I personally don't think we should have begun UNTIL we had a plan for a huge, UN-led force to be in place as we moved through, with the explicit plan to stabilize the country for five to ten years. Germany, Japan, Korea, etc., were older examples of the dedication required to restore order, utilities, infrastructure. And the risk of being scapegoated occupiers was just too great.
eb wrote:
"I can't help but think that if we were doing an honorable thing in an honorable way we would not have this kind of conflict between our values and the troops."
It's always possible that I'm a fluffy idealist, but I also believe that behaving honorably would help us in the long run. I've posted about it before.
This is the way I look at it. The Iraqis are no strangers to torture. They understand exactly what it means when someone disappears inside a government-run building and never comes out. They don't need pictures.
They don't have as much experience with justice. They're used to a government of guns and lies.
If we do the honorable thing, though--if we stop the torturers and the ones who condone torture, no matter how high in the government they are--the Iraqis are going to see something new. They will see, I hope, a government that serves people rather than rules them. A government that can be held accountable for its actions. A government where the powerful can be punished, if it proves necessary--not because someone else had more guns, but because someone told the truth and refused to be silenced.
I suspect the Iraqi people have had enough of guns. I suspect that if they see something better, they'll jump at it. And if we can be a real, living, working example of "something better" . . . maybe something good will finally come out of this whole appallingly stupid war.
Irene
I am thinking that the photos and videos will be so shocking to Americans that just cant believe such things would be done by us, that a groundswell of outrage, like I feel, would ensue and demand that those responsible in any fashion were held responsible.
------------------------------
Who are you kidding? You want GW's head. Not the Secretary of Defense, not those doing the abuse,....you want GW.
dave - Wednesday October 5, 2005 09:48:07 PM EST
If he is involved I want him too. If not so be it. Here is a clue you dont have amazing mind reading powers. I doubt that even if he was involved there will be a paper trail to lead to him. What I want is to be assured this will never happen again. The best way to assure that is to put some high level officials like Generals and civilian defense officials in jail for doing it then next time they get the wink and nod they will just stand up and say no, I am not going to prison over this, I wont do it.
dave wrote:
"Who are you kidding? You want GW's head. Not the Secretary of Defense, not those doing the abuse,....you want GW."
Can't speak for everyone, of course, but from my point of view . . . no, not really. I could easily believe that W is oblivious to all this. I don't have a very high opinion of the man's intelligence.
Irene
I guess Limbaugh would like an activist judge to disregard the law.
If you think that the Iraqis are so stupid that they dont know their fellow countrymen are being tortured, then you have some real problems. Put yourself in their place, would you need a picture to know your loved ones aren't coming home? If anything, releasing the photos should offer hope to the Iraqis that there are people with morals in the US. Releasing the photos will show them that some of us share their outrage.
For the people that think those with liberal leanings want the president to be brought down... you are sickening. Maybe you are projecting, after all the right spent millions of dollars trying to bring down an American president.
Clear Channel's Major Mouth is naturally opposed to freedom of speech and pro-corporatocracy. Powell's son at the FCC helped squelch competition and facilitate their near-monopoly. Notice that despite the majority of America disagreeing with both Rush and W, there's virtually no alternative. Air America is barely a pimple on their big butt. Then again, this did help Rush avoid military duty.
Before passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, a company could not own more than 40 radio stations in the entire country. With the Act's sweeping relaxation of ownership limits, Clear Channel now owns approximately 1225 radio stations in 300 cities and dominates the audience share in 100 of 112 major markets. [link to www.reclaimdemocracy.org]
What I want is to be assured this will never happen again.
-----------------------------
I think that would be a universal stance. However, I have read enough of your posts to come to the conclusion that you have no intention of believing that this administration can do anything positive. Your conspiracy theory regarding the abuse paper trail never leading back to GW points that out, even though there is no direct link.
dave - Wednesday October 5, 2005 10:38:24 PM EST -
You are free to think whatever you want, its pretty weak to talk about something any intelligent person would do as a conspircy theory. I think power learned its lesson with Watergate, not leaving a paper trail is far from an exceptional idea, I am not the one that coined the term plausable deniability. YOU are reaching.
This argument seems to be endless, and tediously repetitive.
The original point of the thread was to quote Rush Limbaugh's characterization of the judge who ordered the photos released as an America-hater and friend of terrorism, a "wacko" who will do anything to hurt America. I'm sure everyone here, left, right, and non-partisan would agree that such a characterization is outrageous, slanderous, and demagogic. However, I fear that some of the arguments used belie that agreement.
Several times we have heard that those who want to make a partisan issue out of these photos are "Bush-bashers" who want only to hurt the President even at the expense of our troops. Remember that it was Limbaugh and his ilk, not the left-wingers here, who made a partisan issue of these photos. It is Limbaugh who equates the success of the Bush administration's policies in Iraq with the success of America. Why then should those who oppose Bush not equate the failure of America in Iraq with the failure of the Bush administration? If it requires setbacks to the occupation of Iraq and the loss of American soldiers' lives to accomplish the goal of damaging the President, surely that is equivalent to seeking the success of the enterprise in Iraq in order to win a victory for the President. By standing for the safety of the troops in Iraq, one is necessarily standing for protecting the Bush administration from the opprobrium that will accompany the release of these photos and the ensuing increase in violence. The matter of these photos is inextricably bound up with the political fortunes of President Bush. One side conflates the political fortunes of this President with the fortunes of America and its soldiers.
The arguments about the cost/benefit of releasing these photos strike me as either facile or disengenuous. The essence of the argument is that since everyone already knows what's in the photos, it will do no good (or no harm) to release them. The opponents of releasing the photos say that the American people will not care and the Arab street will be inflamed. The proponents say that the Arab street already knows and can't get any worse, and the American people will be inflamed. If everybody knows, everybody knows -- you can't have it both ways. It seems most likely to me that the shock value of actually seeing the photos will inflame both. The insurgents will have a new bloody shirt to wave in the streets, while the American people will react with horror and disgust. Both will cost American lives in Iraq, and probably hasten our retreat.
I think it's important to bear in mind that the occupation of Iraq is a battle in the "war on terror", not the whole war. It is possible to win a battle and still lose the war, and it is possible to win a Pyrrhic victory the cost of which is greater than the gain. The way things are going in Iraq, it's looking like either or both of those things is likely. That many more American soldiers will die in Iraq is certain. That releasing these photos will increase that number is uncertain, as is the political damage to President Bush.
There is risk no matter which side prevails. The greatest risk lies in succumbing to the divisive, inflammatory, deceptive rhetoric of people like Rush Limbaugh, and bickering back and forth endlessly about whose political agenda should be served while vehemently denying that we are partisans. If you want the truth to come out because it will hurt the President, admit it. If you want to suppress the truth, which will result in political gain for the President, admit it.
-mid
If it requires setbacks to the occupation of Iraq and the loss of American soldiers' lives to accomplish the goal of damaging the President, surely that is equivalent to seeking the success of the enterprise in Iraq in order to win a victory for the President.-by midsize
***
I think you need to take another look at your equivalency scale. If I read you correctly it is ok if we lose soldiers if it damages the president.
XXXXXXXXXXXX
If you want the truth to come out because it will hurt the President, admit it. If you want to suppress the truth, which will result in political gain for the President, admit it. -by midsize
***
It shouldn’t surprise anyone that someone who boils all things into either a simple win or loss for political gain would also see these as the only two positions we can hold on this issue.
The photos must be released.
It is not hyperbole to compare the actions of the current administration with those of the Third Reich in Germany in this regard. Why? Because the civilian population was INTENTIONALLY kept ignorant about the atrocities committed by its government in THEIR name. It would not have been enough for the abuses at the concentration camps to have been confirmed by public officials without publicly available photographs. Can you imagine if to date no photographs of the horrors at Aushwitz, Dachau, etc. had not been released under the guise of antional security? Those denying the holocaust would be in FAR greater numbers for sure.
To dispute the Nazi correlation on the basis of a mere body count dismisses the organizational and administrative similarities between our government and the third reich. A feeling of legal impunity pervaded both governments, as did the promotion of a culture of the acceptance of torture and its subsequent denial. However, many have died under U.S. custody at Abu Ghraib and Bagram. The release of these photographs would perhaps enrage the public to the extent that Congress would be forced to form an independent commission to document and prosecute acts of torture under this administration. The DOD looking into the abuses is akin to the fox guarding the henhouse.
The true motivation for the insurgency is the fact that the military plans to have and is constructing 14 permanent military bases in Iraq. Don't believe it? Larry Diamond, former advisor to the CPA has said in no uncertain terms that this is the case.
by blueblood - Wednesday October 5, 2005 11:04:53 PM EST -
ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Don't dispute the claim, just make some puerile comment or notation. Hey, I think I have what it takes to be a conservative!
ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz
by murph - Wednesday October 5, 2005 11:07:15 PM EST
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
murph, I'm thinking you have a sleep disorder...you comment in this vein quite a bit...
"murph, I'm thinking you have a sleep disorder...you comment in this vein quite a bit..."
by wanderwoman
***************************************
WW I know that was a "shot", but it made me laugh anyway. Thanks, I needed to wake up.
I guess the boring drone of the whining lefties here works like a sleeping pill for me.
WW I know that was a "shot", but it made me laugh anyway.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hey, if we can laugh together, maybe we can find some kind of common ground. Not sure this is a good time to be waking up though :)
It is amazing that many on this site seem to think the general public of the US is fully aware of what went on in Abu Ghraib. From the photos shown, it could easily be dismissed as a few bad apples being cruel to some prisoners. Have any of you seen the photos that will soon be released? I have not. I have heard from posters here and on ONE radio show that there was torture and rape of children. Has Rush mentioned this? How about Fox news? Any other major news outlets post big headlines saying RAPE OF CHILDREN? I haven't seen it. My wife got me a copy of "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America". The author, Bernard Goldberg, talks about the prison scandal a bit saying that making prisoners take off their clothes and get into a pile just isn't that bad. Or making someone stand around with a pair of women’s panties over his head is not nice. These are the same things Rush, Hanity, O'Reilly and others have been hammering since day one. The "other side" of the media says, "well it was worse than what they are saying", no elaboration, just worse. Even the phrasing used by people such as Rush, as well as people posting here is used to diminish what happened. They call it "prisoner abuse" or "mistreatment" but rarely if ever "torture" and "rape". It is easy to do this without any physical evidence that is was far more than that. If the photos and tapes are released and IF any news organizations actually posts them for the public to see, only then will the American public wake up and realize what really happened over there. I for one would like to know what we really did. Are the torture stories true? Did my government, in my name, rape children? I not only have a right to know, but an obligation to find out.
solon, by your comment I take it you are from Arizona. I too, greatly respect John McCain, and truly wished that he had run for VP with John Kerry as that may have made a difference in the election. My respect for him decreased however, when I saw how he began pandering to the Repblican agenda and backing Bush in the election despite the unimaginably hurtful lies brought up by Bush and Rove during the primaries. Hopefully one day soon McCain will regain his moral courage and will stand up for his convictions, regardless of party lines.
Will the release of additional photos help our enemies? Yes. Will the release of photos add further substance or evidence to the debate here? No. Will the release of photos further embarrass the Bush Administration? Yes.
So, it goes with the entire war debate. Politically speaking, embarrassing Bush is more important than the negative implications of assisting our enemies.(Fascist Islam)
For the record, the abuses at Abu Ghraib were exposed by the US Army itself and numerous charges were already being brought up for the perps before the pictures even became public. A thorough, independent investigation headed by former Carter Def Sec James Schlesinger found, essentially, that the abuses were the perpetrated by the bored, graveyard shift guards, had nothing to do with interogations, and were neither authorized nor condoned by their superior officers.
danosullivan61 - Thursday October 6, 2005 10:36:04 AM EST
The army only brought out the abuse AFTER photos surfaced, the Red Cross had told the administration a year earlier that there was abuse at Abu Ghraib. If fascist Islam (by which I hope you mean extremist Islamic fascism not that we went to war with the entire Islamic world) was the reason for the war why did we invade the most secular Islamic country in the region? Your arguments seem to be divorced completely from what is right or wrong and focus on shielding Bush from any criticism or accountability, that is your right but I cant take that argument seriously, I am not convinced there will be fallout from release of the photos IF they are followed by a real investigation into the scandal, all the way up the foodchain.
solon,
The disingenousness of you and many other's argument here is this all or nothing strawman you continue to offer up. "If the abuse is not revealed the perpetrators will not be held accountable......." The point has been here endlessly that everybody is more than well aware of this torture scandal, the NYT had it on it's front page for weeks - there is no more clarification necessary, more evidence perhaps, but the meat of the story is well known. To pile on more photos does nothing to clarify the abuse, it only feeds people's morbid curiosity, puts Americans at further risk and emboldens our enemies to use it for their propaganda and recruitment.
Surely you can see that and don't want the enemy strengthened, at our soldier's expense.
Solon, it's a meaningless distinction to refer to Baathist Iraq, or any other dictatorship for that matter, as 'secular'. Unless, of course, you think the people had some kind of say in the matter.
Nor is it a defense of Bush to assert that releasing additional photos will add nothing to the debate, shed no new light, or hold anyone else 'responsible'. It will mostly give our enemies (not the entire Muslim world) some additional propaganda value and Greta von Botox something to blather on about for a couple of newscycles.
Also, you're incorrect about the chronology of the photos predating the Army's inquiry into the matter. Look it up.
In WWII we tortured many Nazis to get information yet we did not allow that information out to the public. If everything was aired during WWII like it is now the war would have turned out very differently and we might have even been on the losing side.
Some of you speak as if you understand how it is over there. As if you know what they are trying to do to us and how long this has actually been going on. Should we torture to get information to save many lives. Hell yes we should if that means saving American or helpless lives, hell yes we should.
Again this shows how most of you have not had any millitary experience yet speak as if you are all Generals.
Wake up folks, we are war and this war wont end anytime soon.
apache25 - Thursday October 6, 2005 12:00:50 PM EST
As appalling as that is, during WW2 it wasnt against the law, so far as I know beyond the Geneva Convention statutes. The Convention against torture statute makes it against federal law. I dont have to argue with you about the merits of torture, feel free to explain how we need to dehumanize our soldiers by getting them to torture people or that torture is a good thing. ITS AGAINST THE LAW. If you think torture is a good thing I suggest you contact your congressperson and explain it all to him as of now its illegal
And I ask you would this include the raping of children? That is what many are saying these photos contain. I will repeat that again, the raping of children. Did we rape children of the Nazis to get info during WW2? God, I hope not. This just goes to my earlier point, without the evidence it is dismissed as typical torture of enemy soldiers or terrorists. I would think everyone would agree just because someone's father is a terrorist or insurgent does not mean we should have the right to rape you in front of them. If you were looking to create a whole new generation of people willing to do anything to hurt America, I would think this would be the best way to do it.
Ok good argument there. One thing though, the Geneva Convention does not apply to them for they are not soldiers. They are terrorists.
So with that said what happened at Abu Graib was horrible. They tortured out of bordem not for intelligence. If though by some means my squad and I had a chance to save another squad from being ambushed by Terrorists by torturing a captured insurgent then I would not hesitate.
Solon, let me ask you something. Have you been in the millitary and been in a war such as this before? Have you seen terrorists ambush you and you have to watch as you can do nothing but hold your position. Watch as 10-15 soldiers here and 10-15 soldiers there die because someone at home thinks saving 10-20-30 soldiers is not worth saving one terrorist from getting the snot beat out of him until he talked. In fighting terrorism intelligence is the Holy Grail. With it you can shut down cells and with out it you are a blind man in the middle of the desert.
I am all for the Geneva Convention if we were at war with another country, but we are not. We have terrorist with sole life is to hunt and kill Americans and that is all they care about. Toture and humiliation are the only things that hurt them, for letting one have nice accomodations once captured will do nothing but end more soldiers lives.
Ok good argument there. One thing though, the Geneva Convention does not apply to them for they are not soldiers. They are terrorists.
So with that said what happened at Abu Graib was horrible. They tortured out of bordem not for intelligence. If though by some means my squad and I had a chance to save another squad from being ambushed by Terrorists by torturing a captured insurgent then I would not hesitate.
Solon, let me ask you something. Have you been in the millitary and been in a war such as this before? Have you seen terrorists ambush you and you have to watch as you can do nothing but hold your position. Watch as 10-15 soldiers here and 10-15 soldiers there die because someone at home thinks saving 10-20-30 soldiers is not worth saving one terrorist from getting the snot beat out of him until he talked. In fighting terrorism intelligence is the Holy Grail. With it you can shut down cells and with out it you are a blind man in the middle of the desert.
I am all for the Geneva Convention if we were at war with another country, but we are not. We have terrorist with sole life is to hunt and kill Americans and that is all they care about. Toture and humiliation are the only things that hurt them, for letting one have nice accomodations once captured will do nothing but end more soldiers lives.
Not true. The Geneva Conventions explicitly state that no signatory nation has the right to arbitrarily deny foreign prisoners in its custody the protections of the convention. If the United States wishes to challenge the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to its prisoners in custody at Guantanamo Bay then it must take its case before an independent tribunal, which will then determine the prisoners' status.
You neglect to mention that Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen, was held incommunicado at Guantanamo Bay without ever having charges filed against him by the U.S. government. The Patriot Act allows the government to do this to ANYONE it deems as a "terrorist." Liberals and conservatives alike should be frightened by this gross overextension of federal power.
You are also wrong to assert that the torture was conducted out of boredom. The source of the statement that GWB made on 10/7/02 in Cincinnati that stated that Iraq had trained Al-Qaeda operatives in the use of poison gasses among other things came from an Al Qaeda op. who had been captured in Pakistan three months after 9/11. The detainee was subjected to extreme interrogation methods authorized by the CIA and provided the information that eventually came from Bush's lips in Ohio. Of course, the testimony was never corroborated and the detainee later recanted his story.
Finally, the VAST majority of prisoners at Abu Ghraib had not done anything wrong, they just happened to be in the general vicinity of an insurgent attack and were rounded up arbitrarily along with a bunch of other young men by U.S. forces. These men and children never had charges brought against them and most were later released. The fact that U.S. soldiers face daily attacks from an unknown enemy, a la Vietnam is NO excuse for what happened at Abu Ghraib. Using your logic, the massacre at My Lai was in part justified. That is a sick line of thought. Get help soon.
Don't restate what I said. I made it specificly clear that Abu graib was horrible.
This is war and in war things happen and things are done that needs to be done and times things are done that should have never happened and those people are brought to justice, just like abu graib.
Geneva Convention states in Article 4.
Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.
With the above stated, a terrorist is none of the above and there for will not be bound by the Geneva Convention. One thing while being in the millitary that we had to learn was the Geneva Convention extensively.
Odd triple post, very strange.
"From what I read about these pictures, these people may have every right to bring a lawsuit. Then again, we could only know for sure if the photos and videos were actually released.
As to the taxpayers footing the bill...Is this the first time you have considered these consequences of what happened at Abu Ghraib? Does it have to hit you in the pocket-book before you seriously consider what was done was wrong possibly?"--openmind
No, and I am tiring quickly of your condescending tone. Like anyone who does not think like you is an idiot, or that you are so much more "in the know," than the rest of us. It's okay if we disagree, but stop talking to everyone like they are your child. Then, maybe we can actually have an open discussion. Until then...