Ask these Dead People what the Release of the Abu Ghraib Photos Gained them

[berni_mccoy]

Nicholas Evan Berg (April 2, 1978 – May 7, 2004) was an American businessman seeking telecommunications work in Iraq after the US invasion of Iraq. He was abducted and later beheaded according to a video released in May 2004 by Islamic militants. The CIA claimed that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi personally beheaded Berg.

The decapitation was released on the Internet, reportedly from London to a Malaysian hosted homepage by the Islamic organization al-Ansars. His killers claimed that his death was carried out to avenge abuses of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison.

The photos were released in April of 2004. April saw one of the highest casualty rates of the entire war. In fact, before the release of the photos, the average casualty rate for U.S. soldiers was 46 per month. Afterward, it was 75 per month, nearly doubled (source http://icasualties.org/Iraq/index.aspx)

Why do you think the Bush Administration released those photos? Was it out of some sense of transparency? No. It was to scapegoat the war crimes on a select few soldiers who were ORDERED to do it. The Bush Administration didn't give a damn that it would kill soldiers who had nothing to do with torture. They didn't give a damn about anything or anyone but themselves.

Now, when Obama actually considers the real life impact of a decision to release new photos of torture, he is criticized from the left for not being transparent. Well, he's been very explicit as to why he believes the release of these photos aren't a good idea right now. As he stated, it's because it will put the soldiers and Americans at broad at an unnecessary increased risk. Obama believes in truth and justice, be assured. That's not what delaying the release of these photos is about. The difference between Obama and Bush is that Obama knows how to listen to his troops and knows when it would be wise to release them. He will bring what happened to light, but the purists are going to have to wait for the right time.

For those purists here who would criticize him for being a protector of Bush, you can take your 'transparency' argument to the souls of these lost people. Ask them what they think is the right thing to do here. Ask them if Bush was doing the right thing or covering his ass. Keep pushing to get these photos released. The blood will be on your hands as well.

[Hepburn]

1. Does the word "justice"...

...mean anything?

[berni_mccoy]

2. Of course.

[Renew Deal]

58. What do you mean by justice?

:shrug:

[Hepburn]

83. The constant and perpetual disposition to render every man his due. n/t

[Phx_Dem]

95. Justice means investigating and prosecuting a crime. DONE!

You (and I) may not like the fact that the brass passed the blame. But they did and it's OVER. They are not going to reinvestigate something that's already been INVESTIGATED AND PROSECUTED.

I guess we should reinvestigate and prosecute OJ Simpson too. Jesus Christ, get a grip.

[onetwo]

117. Plenty of criminals are brought to justice without every grisly crime scene photo going public.

Suddenly, a verbal description is not enough, even in the face of a solid reason for holding the pics back.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. So what you're saying is...

it's OK to curtail freedom for the sake of a little security?

[berni_mccoy]

5. If you are an idiot, then I can see how you would interpret it that way. But no, that's not it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

OK, so then you want to photos to be released.

Right?

[berni_mccoy]

14. I want justice to be done. Is it necessary to release the photos to obtain justice?

[wileedog]

7. What freedom is being curtailed exactly?

Your right to look at gory photos?

Its not like anyone is denying crimes were committed or that they are not being prosecuted. They are just not releasing the evidence for public view.

So what freedom is being mercilessly ripped from you?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. The freedom of information.

A series of judges in a series of court cases and appeals have ruled that the public has a right to view the photos under the Freedom of Information Act.

[wileedog]

13. And Obama is challenging the ruling in court saying

That a proper case was not presented for National Security Issues. Which is perfectly legal in our system for him to do.

The court can rule tomorrow that it doesn't matter and the photos will get released, and your freedom is presevered.

Or they could rule that the President is right and releasing them is indeed a security risk, and you know what? Your freedom is still preserved, because Obama stayed completely within the legal system and at the end of the day you seeing those photos means absolutely nothing anyway.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. Yes.

And Obama's argument is that a little security is worth a little freedom.

[wileedog]

28. No his arguement if you listened to the statement

is that your freedom has absolutely nothing to do a bunch of photos, and the risk to soldiers lives and the current ME peace initiatives are not worth the complete and total non-impact of you viewing them.

[Hippo_Tron]

47. So you don't believe in national security exceptions for FOIA?

Should I be allowed to request the nuclear codes under FOIA because freedom is more important than security?

[Raineyb]

115. Holding back these pictures have shit to do with national security

And it's not on par with the nuclear codes. Your argument is disingenuous to say the least.

[RememberWellstone]

131. We have the right to see them!

I agree with you, we voted for openess not the same lying Bushite!

[madmom]

85. But the right is denying crimes were committed, the photos will prove otherwise.

It's is not that anyone (at least I hope) wants to see them, it's because we need the proof that it was done. Just saying it isn't working.

[Phx_Dem]

96. Curtail freedom? ROLF. Good one.

[Buzz Clik]

4. Sorry, but you're on the wrong side of the fence here at DU.

If you support the president, you'll have to find someplace else to post.

Don't let the screendoor hit you in the ass....

[Cha]

30. Au Contraire, Monsieur Click

It is we who suppport ze president who are hangin' around;)

[Buzz Clik]

101. What a team -- fence sitters and surrender monkeys.

:evilgrin:

[FloriTexan]

46. YOU are wrong.

Even a fence has more than two sides. Perhaps YOU should jump off one.

[Buzz Clik]

100. There is strong tendency for DUers to do exactly as you say -- always choose one side.

I have plenty of opinions about the progress that the Obama administration is making. But, considering we have yet to complete the fourth month, I am pleased at the progress, and I support his priorities. Funny thing -- my pet obsession has not made the "A list" of his priorities, but I've managed to keep perspective.

If avoiding irrational condemnations every time Obama makes a move makes me a fence-sitter, then I'm guilty as charged.

[JuniperLea]

97. Love it or leave it, eh?

I think not.

[Buzz Clik]

102. Just the opposite --

If you don't crap your drawers every time Obama makes a decision, then you will be in the minority.

[Moochy]

110. checking the checklist

infantilizing opponent? check.
scatalogical references? check.
divisive language?, check.
3/3 !
In only 19 words no less...

Yep! It's a Buzz Click Post!!

[JuniperLea]

126. Then I'm in the minority...

I'm used to it. I rarely find anything in common with "the crowd."

[islandmkl]

6. good post, berni...

as far as 'justice?' goes...there is no single 'justice', this is not a black and white, easily-defined situation...

to draw a line in the sand and claim it delineates 'justice' is a strawman absurdem argument...

[MADem]

8. I have to wonder, especially in light of the descriptions of the photos

(that they are similar to the Abu Ghraib pictures, which are, certainly offensive, but the point is made that they're of the same sorts of imagery), who is served. Certainly not the victims in the photos, and certainly not the depicted perpetrators, who have already been punished.

I wonder who is being a purist, and who is being prurient, frankly. As I've said elsewhere, I do not need to see a photo of the butchered body of Sharon Tate to understand that Charles Manson did a terrible thing. The perpetrators depicted in these photos have been brought to justice already--several years ago.

And I agree that the photos, even if they're of similar images to the released AG ones, have strong potential to produce a backlash. Further, with the "Spring Offensive" now underway, it could very easily provide additional impetus to those who might be motivated to do harm.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

15. We never tortured anyone

Go ahead, ask any right-winger and they'll tell you we don't torture.
Do I really need to close the circle and make the obvious point here? I didn't think so.

[berni_mccoy]

16. Then releasing the photos won't accomplish anything. If people have seen Abu Ghraib

and still believe we didn't torture, then new photos won't do anything to convince them either.

[KansDem]

21. I think sodomizing children and raping women would be extremely convincing...

...even to the most ardent naysayers.

Release the photos and let's see...

[wileedog]

43. To what end?

Do you really think in the middle of the worst recession in recent memory another set of photos is going to create this huge groundswell to prosecute Bush?

People are worried about their jobs and their healthcare and their kids education and their disappearing retirement fund. Nobody cares about Bush other than the fact he is gone.

Do you really think a set of photos is going to change that?

Besides, Obama has already said there is nothing "sensational" in the photos. I'm pretty sure sodomizing children would fall under that category.

[KansDem]

49. It could be the CIA has destroyed the child-sodomizing tapes...

But I guarantee that if we saw the videos of children being sodomized by Americans or American-funded "private contractors," this whole sordid debate would be put to rest. And we would lose...BIG time.

Do you really think in the middle of the worst recession in recent memory another set of photos is going to create this huge groundswell to prosecute Bush? You betcha!

Do you really think a set of photos is going to change that? Ohhhhh, yeah! I really do...

Besides, if you are convinced nothing will come of these images, then release them. Simple as that.

Release the photos (and tapes) and we'll see...Okay?

[wileedog]

61. I smell Fitzmas Round II

And I think there is a downside to releasing them that offsets the "what the heck just release them and see what happens."

We're in the middle of a terrible recession. People are worried about jobs, healthcare, and their retirement evaporating. Personally I don't think there is the political will to start the enormous task of prosecuting a previous President and VP, which does nothing to improve the everyday stress of people's lives.

IMO.

[vaberella]

59. Are you sure those pictures are to be released in the first place?

I notice a lot of people say this but I don't know where they're getting this from.

[KansDem]

77. No, I don't...

I'm just going on what Sy Hersh has written. And I believe him before any of the Bush Cable.

Will they be released? Could be they're already destroyed. I would imagine if they were to be released, all hell would break lose...

[MADem]

78. There are no photos in this ACLU request depicting that. Not at all.

I hate to say it, but you sound like you're totally unaware of the investigations that these pictures are attached to, or you're almost hoping that the characterization of them is somehow untrue. I don't understand your eagerness and enthusiasm for something worse--what they are is bad enough. That's your issue; I'm not ascribing motive but I would be lying if I said I didn't find your "enthusiam" curious.

Enough people, including the judges who adjudicated these requests, have SEEN the photos. The ACLU want copies, and they're not getting them--at least not now. They've gotten a hundred thousand pages of documents on these issues, to include the completed investigations associated with these pictures. No raped women or kids pop up in these completed investigations, so why would there be pictures of same attached to the documents? That flunks the logic test.

No one who has actually seen the pictures has disputed the characterization of the photos by the Pentagon official. The "supposition" cheerleaders, though, are as always out in full force.

[KansDem]

89. I don't' know if I'm "totally unaware" of not...

I don't recall any committee summoning Sy Hersh to testify. He spoke before the ACLU in 2004 about such photos/videos; that's five years ago. So why hasn't he been summoned to speak before a investigative committee? If he knows, I would imagine many others do to.

I'm particularly intrigued by this paragraph:
America needs to grow up fast. There is no place for hiding our heads in the sand. There is no place for looking the other way. There is no way to move forward if we leave this crime against humanity un-punished behind us. To do so is criminally negligent, and it guarantees two things. It guarantees that we will torture again and it guarantees that we will go to war needlessly and without evidence again.

I agree. If left unpunished, we'll just do it again... And again... And again...

So why hasn't Hersh and others (other than the "let's bury the photos" crowd) been given a forum to address this?

[MADem]

93. You don't understand what the ACLU was asking for, if you bring up Sy Hersh.

That's not what this redaction of photos is about. Sy Hersh's complaints have nothing to do with these investigations. Pictures that Sy Hersh may or may not have seen are not in this ACLU request. We know that for a fact, because the written investigations have been released and the pictures are described.

These investigations have to do with abuse at other prison facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, other than Abu Ghraib, around the same time as AG. The people responsible for the excesses have already been brought to justice, quietly. These investigations happened because pictures similar to AG were uncovered at other sites.

The pictures the ACLU has asked for are attached to completed investigations--and they are described in these completed investigations. It's why that Lego artist guy was able to recreate the pictures using Legos--because he read the descriptions that were provided in these completed investigations.

There's no "punishment" to be had here. You don't understand the issues--you're mistakenly assuming that the people who did this stuff haven't been held accountable, when they have. The punishment of these people has happened already. They were, ironically, punished by the Bush administration for stepping over the "enhanced interrogation techniques" line that they had drawn.

Now, if you want to punish Bush and Friends for coming up with those "enhanced interrogation techniques," these pictures won't help you at all. Why? Because the Bush administration has already said that this stuff went over the line that they drew. The Bush administration punished the people who did this. If you object to their "enhanced interrogation/torture" techniques, you have to go after the lawyers who crafted the policy, the judges and the attorney general who signed off on it, and the President and/or Vice President who gave the order to ginn up this stupid torture policy in the first place. But using pictures that the Bush administration themselves said exceeded the authority that they issued isn't helpful. The conversation would go something like

Obama administration official: "Wow, look at these pictures --they are horrible and illegal!!!"

Bush administration official: "Yes, they sure as hell are, that's why we investigated them and punished the perpetrators!"

Now, if you can find someone at Justice or at DOD who straight-up said "Ignore the guidance" that's a horse of a different color. But you'd think, with the number of investigations that have been completed, that someone would say "Gee, General Nuisance came through here and told us to do this. He even showed us how!" Hasn't happened yet. Not saying it won't, though, but in all the investigations they've done, they haven't been able to pin this on anyone in the chain of command.

[KansDem]

94. Really? You're quite learned on this topic...

The perpetrators have been punished? I must have missed that. What individuals were punished?

...but in all the investigations they've done, they haven't been able to pin this on anyone in the chain of command.

So we're talking about the those on the lower echelons of the torture ladder?

If you object to their "enhanced interrogation/torture" techniques, you have to go after the lawyers who crafted the policy, the judges and the attorney general who signed off on it, and the President and/or Vice President who gave the order to ginn up this stupid torture policy in the first place.

I agree--so why can't these heinous photos/videos be used as evidence? It would seem to me releasing these media would do wonders in getting Bush and Cheney into court. Currently, it seems we're still trying to decide whether it was "torture" or "enhance interrogation techniques." I'll bet one look/listen to the photos/videos would remove all doubt in an instant...

[MADem]

105. I would suggest that you

head for the ACLU website, and read the documents in question if you really want answers to your questions and aren't just snarking like we see so often here at DU. There are over a hundred thousand of these documents, and they include the sixty or so investigations that included these photos as enclosures (which were redacted).

The people who were found to be abusers got everything from reduction in rank, bad conduct discharges, or went to jail for their sins depending on the severity. You might also find the investigations on the Army or DOD websites (IIRC the USAF did a few of them). I can't name all the people who have been punished, but the number is up around four hundred.

The people who did the abusing, though, are entirely different people than the ones who issued the guidance and dictated the commands. What, do you think Dick Cheney went over there with a whip and barked orders?

These photographs are worthless as evidence because all they prove is that the Bush administration OBJECTED to, and PUNISHED this sort of conduct.


If you want to go after higher-ups in the Bush administration for knowledge aforethought and issuance of illegal orders, those documents are completely unhelpful. No one punished by them has fingered a higher-up, or has been able to name the names of mysterious civilian personnel who worked alongside them.

You'd do better to start out with this document as a foundation for an investigation (I have skimmed it twice, and find it fascinating despite the many redactions--every time I look at it, I find more things that are "news to me"):

http://armed-services.senate.gov/Publications/Detainee%20Report%20Final_April%2022%202009.pdf

Money quote:

(U) The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of
"a few bad apples" acting on their own. The fact is that senior officials in the United States
government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to
create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees. Those efforts
damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand
of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority. This report is a product of the
Committee's inquiry into how those unfortunate results came about.

You might also examine the conclusions reached in this report--they start getting real good around Conclusion Thirteen. These are a basis for a full and open examination of this issue, in the form of HEARINGS, with testimony from all corners, open, and public, and aired in prime time--not a bunch of distracting photographs that we already know (because the Bush administration admitted it) went "over the line."

I don't think you comprehend or appreciate that I am VERY interested in finding out who solicited the information and gave the order to craft the guidance changing torture to "enhanced interrogation." I am interested in punishing these individuals if possible, if not in a court of law, though that would be swell, at least in the court of public opinion. I am also interested in punishing, or at least professionally sanctioning (to the point where they'll need to learn to say "You want fries with that?") the lawyers and judges who played "Go along, git along" with the Bush regime. I am less interested in punishing those who acted in genuine good faith, and relied upon the Attorney General and others and engaged in the techniques allowed (not the disallowed behaviors depicted in the Abu Ghraib and other photos, though), but for those who exceeded the guidance, they should face appropriate punishment.

I am completely uninterested in playing a game of re-excoriation and having a look at more photos of abuses that have been investigated and adjudicated. Like I said, I don't need to see pictures of the butchered body of Sharon Tate to know that Charles Manson was evil and did bad things. I also think that when you do that kind of "wave the bloody shirt" thing, you miss the big fish--the ones named Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.

JMO.

[MADem]

76. I have to ask myself, do you really think that the opinion of "any right-winger" counts for much

more than a handful of cold feces?

Why do you allow the response of "any right-winger" to control your life or challenge your attitudes so easily? They also think that they'll be carried up to heaven on Rapture Day--do you believe that, too?

Rightwingers constitute a very small minority in this nation. The enormous bulk of the nation are moderates, centrists, and left-leaning independents. The left wing is a good deal larger than the right wing, and the right wing is shrivelled and small.

The circle you "need to close" is this revolving, silly idea you apparently carry in your head that the opinions of riht-wing lunatics count for jackshit.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

91. my, but you're pleasant

I'll clarify for you: I don't give a damn what the right thinks about me and my Northern California San Francisco values. I don't care what the right thinks about Teri Schaivo. I don't care if the right hates gay marriage; they'll eventually lose here in California, and they're beginning to lose everywhere else.

I DO give a damn about a nation largely living in denial that we're a torture state. We as a country need to admit this and get it out in the open. Thus far, the right has been very successful in trying to argue that we engaged in frat pranks, not torture. This condition cannot be permitted to persist. This should be clear to you.

This final sentence serves as notice that you'll need to rein in your tone with me; you were unnecessarily harsh and inaccurate with your personal smears and I'm not very tolerable of that sort of thing.

[MADem]

108. I only insult rightwingers, and I urge you to disregard their waning influence.

That's advice that can't possibly be more friendly or pleasant.

I won't repeat my view on this issue , or refer you to a post number that's too hard to find in a sea of posts, but instead I will give you a link to another post I made in this thread. It makes my position on this issue quite clear. You don't own the patent on concern about the entire progression of "advanced/harsh interrogation-torture" techniques.

I hope you take the time to read it--it is not overly long, but it is unambiguous:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8407559&mesg_id=8408924

You apparently don't understand the meaning of "personal insult," but I'll not debate that with you. These are "the internets" and if you can't stand the heat you're welcome to leave the kitchen, though I won't be the one showing you the door. I called you no names, I simply pointed out that if you worry about what idiots think of you, that does reflect on you--poorly, I might add--even if you don't like that simple truth.

You have a nice day, now. :hi:

[DisgustipatedinCA]

111. I've had a nice day, thanks. You still fucked this all up...again

Personal insult doesn't necessarily mean calling someone names. That is the view held by my third grader and her compatriots however, for what it's worth. I told you to back off the tone, and I meant it. If you honestly cannot tell that the post quoted below was insulting, then you've spent too much time basking in the anonymity of the Internet. You would not have spoken this way to me in person, and if you're in the habit of speaking to people like this face-to-face, then you're also in the habit of getting put on the ground on a fairly regular basis. I already told you I don't appreciate the way you're talking to me, and you don't seem to be taking this seriously. I really do want to be a nice person, and in that vein, I'd like to offer you one more opportunity to look at your words again, ask yourself if you'd act like this in a face-to-face meeting, and then do the right thing by me. I urge you to stop right this second with the knee-jerk reaction you're having, salivating to compose your next salvo, and instead just apologize so we can move on.

With sincerity,
Don




I have to ask myself, do you really think that the opinion of "any right-winger" counts for much

more than a handful of cold feces?

Why do you allow the response of "any right-winger" to control your life or challenge your attitudes so easily? They also think that they'll be carried up to heaven on Rapture Day--do you believe that, too?

Rightwingers constitute a very small minority in this nation. The enormous bulk of the nation are moderates, centrists, and left-leaning independents. The left wing is a good deal larger than the right wing, and the right wing is shrivelled and small.

The circle you "need to close" is this revolving, silly idea you apparently carry in your head that the opinions of riht-wing lunatics count for jackshit.

[MADem]

112. "I didn't think so"

We never tortured anyone
Go ahead, ask any right-winger and they'll tell you we don't torture.
Do I really need to close the circle and make the obvious point here? I didn't think so.


You lit it off, Didactic Don--"with sincerity."

Any time you throw down with "I didn't THINK so" you're asking for a dose of your own medicine.

I'm simply responding to your shitty attitude and tone with frankly, way less snark than you dished out. And yes, I'd talk to you in just that tone, in response to your tone towards me. Whoever smelt it, dealt it--if you want to play the grade school game.

But have that nice day, do--and understand that if I wanted to insult you personally, which I haven't the motivation nor inclination to do, I wouldn't fart around.

[Buzz Clik]

103. So I guess you'd be one who might oppose putting this on the shelves:

(I happen to agree to agree with your post)

[NanceGreggs]

10. K & R, my friend ...

... K & R.

[berni_mccoy]

25. Thanks Nance. You are a true friend.

[dave29]

53. and again.

.

[nichomachus]

11. We get it. We get it. Everything Bush did is OK with you. We get it.

Time to move on. National security. Don't embolden the terrorists. Protect the Troops. Terror Alert Orange. Booga Booga.

[NanceGreggs]

24. Expressing legitimate concern ...

... for the consequences to our troops in the ME and American citizens abroad equals "everything Bush did is OK with you".

Yep, that makes perfect sense.

Jesus Hussein Christ - it seems that common sense and logic are being tortured to death right here on DU.

[NYC_SKP]

67. Your reply is uncalled for and just plain nutty. eom.

[MADem]

79. When you can't argue the issues like an adult, call someone a Bush Lover.

Whoever smelt it, dealt it--and you dealt it "Big Time."

You really should be ashamed of that childish argument. It's pretty lazy and the opposite of clever. Booga booga, indeed.

[lamp_shade]

12. Thanks Berni.

[Sebastian Doyle]

17. We should ask EriKKK Prince about the Nick Berg beheading

Since it's far more likely that his BlacKKKwater employees committed it than any actual Muslims. Anyone who saw the tape (and isn't a brainwashed Bush Crime Family tool) knows exactly what I'm talking about.

[berni_mccoy]

23. Please keep your conspiracy theory out of my reality. Thank you.

[Sebastian Doyle]

34. Your "reality" is anything but that.

Nick Berg was killed by white skinned, non-Arab speaking mercenary tools. Therefore, using his murder as an excuse to justify torture is ridiculous.

[BeyondGeography]

38. How daft can you be? One's opinion on releasing the photos says nothing about "supporting" torture

Not that hard to grasp, is it?

[Sebastian Doyle]

44. I'm not saying the OP personally supports torture.

But censorship of these pictures, or conflating a false link between these crimes and the murder of Nick Berg, will do exactly that in the end.

BTW, anyone who has seen the Nick Berg video would notice that the surroundings in that tape look very much like Abu Ghraib prison. Same chairs, same paint on the walls, etc.

[KansDem]

19. I've often wondered about the 2004 beheadings...

A partial list compiled in just a few minutes...

Nick Berg, May 8, 2004
Paul Johnson, June 18, 2004
Eugene Armstrong, September 21, 2004
Jack Hensley, September 22, 2004
Ken Bigley, October 8, 2004

...then the November election.

I don't remember many, if any, beheadings since November, 2004. Do you...?

[Rageneau]

20. Sorry, but the soldiers of ANY nation that tortures POWs SHOULD be put at higher risk.

If the truth is what sets you free, what does covering things up do to you?

I hate it that anybody suffers at the hands of others. I especially hate it when torture is done to, or by, Americans. But truth is, all that is happening now is that our chickens are coming home to roost. We are reaping what we sowed.

Personally, I think the only way the right-wungers will eschew torture in the future is to make them accountible for it today. Rub their noses in it as if they were a puppy being house-trained. Publically shame the entire nation -- even those Republicans who apparently have no shame -- until the fact of what was done in our name is indelibly stamped into our national conscience. It is what we always expect of other nations, is it not?

If the resulting outrage means America and Americans will suffer, excuse me, but where Iraq et al, are concerned, doesn't America DESERVE to suffer some punishment?

How else will we learn not to stand by while bloodthirty wingnuts rampage? How else will we finally learn not to act like those we villify?

[berni_mccoy]

26. Not releasing more photos does not equal a cover up. The Administration has stated what went on

and made it clear that justice will be had and that torture will not happen again.

[reflection]

137. I wish I could recommend this post. n/t

[firedupdem]

22. Rec'd. Thanks n/t

[Lautremont]

27. Sounds like you don't like that the original batch was released either.

My view as a non-American is this: refusing to release the photos looks like a country, and a president, backing away from a moral responsibility to face up to what has been done in their names. It's far more inflammatory than the release of the photos would be, precisely because we already know what's there.

In the mind of your enemies, what they imagine to be in suppressed photos is in any case going to be much worse than what is in fact there - if Obama's assertion that they're "not sensational" is true.

So what's worse? The release of some "not sensational" photos whose content will surprise no one, or the very cowardly- and sleazy-looking refusal to show them?

[berni_mccoy]

29. The original set of photos were released at the benefit of the Bush Administration.

Who got punished as a result? Nobody in the administration.

It wasn't about transparency or justice. It was about CYA and scapegoating and creating the appearances of morality.

I'd rather have a real moral and ethical decision being made by a person who cares and the result be that the photos aren't released than what actually happened during the Bush administration.

[Lautremont]

36. "at the benefit?" I don't think that original release benefitted them much.

You may have meant "at the behest" of the Bush Administration. Certainly they were trying hard to scapegoat the minions, but it hasn't worked, has it? Legal consequences haven't caught up to them, yet, but people know who's responsible. Releasing these new photos would underline that, and also would be the Obama Administration effectively saying "See this? This is what we don't do anymore." The long-term effect would be positive for both the country and the troops.

[wileedog]

He can do that with Abu Ghraib photos if he really needs to

Why is a 2nd set necessary?

[Lautremont]

51. Precisely because the second set hasn't been released yet, and it's Obama's choice to do so.

The simple power of the new president holding these photos up and expressing in forceful terms that they represent neither American values nor his own would be PR of inestimable value, at home and, more importantly, abroad. Bush tried this and it didn't work because he's Bush; if Obama does it, it would show how serious he is about reversing the Bush Administration's values.

I don't understand why this isn't apparent to you all. You claim the denizens of the Middle East are so reactive they'll go bananas at the next naked human pyramid they see, but seem not to accept that they might react to powerfully symbolic gestures of moral rectitude, good faith and reparative intent.

[wileedog]

54. But the photos supposedly are pretty much the same stuff

Does he need to hold up every single photo we have and point out "we won't do this, or this, or this, or this..."

These are not the only photos left either, you know. There are still plenty more that have not been "processed" yet. Do we have to go through this again? Does every single one need to be paraded out, even if nothing new is learned from them?

Is it really not enough to say "we don't torture" and to reach out to the ME in other ways?

More importantly, once these photos are released to the public and hit the internet, the message is out of Obama's hands. They can be attached to anything anyone wants, and used for whatever they want.

Sure some will see Obama's message and be moved. Many others will get these photos with a very different message attached.

[Lautremont]

68. It's not enough - not if there are photos being withheld at the same time.

Kind of undercuts the message.

So many here are wheedling about "having to go through this again." So craven and self-centered. As fort controlling the message, Obama ceded the chance to do just that when he did his 180. If he didn't want to release them, why announce first that they existed and then that he would release them? Rove couldn't have constructed a better narrative in terms of doing harm to Obama. He now looks at once weak and complicit with this epic barbarism.

[wileedog]

82. But there will always be more photos

That's the point.

And again, whether he ceded the message or not, those photos in the public realm are a double edged sword. Its not some great opportunity for empathy with your enemy when you release photos to the world of you beating the snot out of them. I really don't care how you handle the situation before those photos are released or what you say when you do, once they leave the barn they are fodder for anyone to use for any purpose.

Obama is the Commander in Chief. If he can control lessening the threat to his troops it is his obligation to do so. If the fact that it took him some time to come to that decision costs him some political capital then so be it, as long as it is the right call.

The legality of whether those photos should be released is not his to decide, it is the court. As it should be. But for Obama's responsibility as CiC I think this is the right position for him to take, especially with extremely sensitive talks with Isreal and a huge outreach speech to the Arab world coming up in Egypt. Releasing them is like whacking the bee hive before going out to plant flowers.

And I just completely disagree with you there is a net gain to letting them loose on the world because American's will feel 'chastised' or the world will think such a thing will never happen again because we say so. Honest injun!

But I do appreciate some intelligent discussion on it for a change... :toast:

[Lautremont]

90. I don't understand why that's the point.

If there will always be more photos (a pretty horrible thought), what's so special about these ones? Probably nothing, but holding them back gives them more power than they'd otherwise have, and clouds the administration in suspicion and doubt. Not what you want just before a "huge outreach speech."

I said nothing about Americans feeling chastised (though maybe they should) or that the world would think this could never happen again if only the photos are released. But in the great game of politics, there's little more powerful than convincing your opponents and allies that you're being genuinely forthright and are acting with good will - a little resulting domestic discomfort is not a bad thing, since it backs that illusion.

All the people who think Obama is being clever and Machiavellian with this gambit are wrong, I think. He's simply responding to an emotional appeal from some generals. The photos will make it out anyway, by leakage or by lawsuit; and then the opportunity Obama is relinquishing now will be gone forever and the pictures will be there anyway.

[RaleighNCDUer]

31. When fear dictates our actions

the terrorists have won.

I thought we already learned that lesson.

[berni_mccoy]

33. It's not fear, but FACTs. The FACT is that violence WILL escalate and people will die...

if the photos are released now.

[CTyankee]

41. Or it could go the other way and troops die . The fact is, we just don't know.

This is such a tricky issue. An argument can be made that the mere KNOWLEDGE of the existence of these photos could incite violence and not releasing them interpreted as covering up crimes. While I feel better with Obama suppressing the photos than Bush doing it,I wonder if that is really the issue. Do we, in a free society, have a right to know what has been done in our name?

[RaleighNCDUer]

42. That is not a fact - it is a fear.

Just because it happened four years ago, when there was very little extant evidence of those crimes in the public eye, that does not mean it would happen now when the entire fucking world knows what happened. At that time there were still thoughts of us being 'liberators' in Iraq, and the war in Afghanistan was justified because of what AQ and Bin Laden had done to us.

The FACT is that violence in both Iraq and Afghanistan has been increasing, so there will be an increase anyway - and these pics would have nothing to do with it.

It must be depressing to be so fearful.

[Supersedeas]

87. the decision to withhold graphic evidence of the truth combined with an unwillingness to prosecute

War Crimes is also a fact....no?

[Moochy]

109. Events, when talked about in the future tense

...are not Facts.
A Question, How can you even see through that crystal ball with all of that dry powder on it?

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.

[Sebastian Doyle]

35. Grovelbot is pro torture !11!!!1!!!

Damn your evil metal hide!! :mad:

[RememberWellstone]

130. I lol'ed

Haha the bot cometh!

[Forkboy]

37. But Obama said there was nothing sensational about the pictures, so no one will be mad, right?

If the pictures are mild they surely won't put our troops in danger.

So which is it? Are they too dangerous to release, or nothing sensational? Obama is arguing both sides, and looks a fool doing it.

[berni_mccoy]

39. He never said that and no one here is making that claim.

[Forkboy]

50. "...these photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational."

- Obama


http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Statement-by-the-President-on-the-Situation-in-Sri-Lanka-and-Detainee-Photographs/

[FloriTexan]

52. Where then do you stop....

You release a few, then a few more, then all of them in full bloody horror are out there. Bush administration set their own precedent by releasing them. Obama has a chance to establish his own precedent. These photos should only be viewed by the prosecution and defense teams and a judge in camera.

[Forkboy]

56. After World War 2 we forced german civilians to see some of the atrocities commited in their name.

We Americans need the same done to us (and no, I'm not comparing this with the scale of the Holocaust in any way). While most of us here on DU get it, a vast swath of Americans don't, and only being directly confronted with the truth can we possibly hope to reach enough people to make sure we don't do this again. Limiting the people who see this stuff to a small group of the selected only ensures the opposite.

[FloriTexan]

62. Then it would seem ...

that we have failed to even learn the same lessons we intended to teach the German civilians. We Americans have elected a better administration than the one that committed these crimes. What more do we need to do?

[Forkboy]

69. "What more do we need to do?"

Well, one thing we don't need to do is assume that because we have a better administration in office now that we've done all we can. And maybe after 65 years we need a refresher course.

[lamp_shade]

40. Big Fat Recommend !!

[struggle4progress]

45. The Nicholas Berg case may raise more questions than you think: American authorities had

(for example) alleged Berg had connections to the 9/11 hijackers, and Berg's father has been quoted as saying that matter was investigated by the FBI in 2003

Berg's encounter with 'terrorist' revealed
WEST CHESTER, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- When Nicholas Berg took an Oklahoma bus to a remote college campus a few years ago, the American recently beheaded by terrorists allowed a man with terrorist connections to use his laptop computer, according to his father. Michael Berg said the FBI investigated the matter more than a year ago. He stressed that his son was in no way connected to the terrorists who captured and killed him ... http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast/05/13/berg.encounter/

... Moussaoui had used his e-mail account when he was in Oklahoma ...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119896,00.html

The American military may have detained Berg in Iraq; he was, in any case, detained and was released only after a lawsuit was filed

FBI told police to hold Berg
13/05/2004 17:16 - (SA)
Mosul, Iraq - Nick Berg, the US hostage shown being beheaded by Islamic radicals, was held for two weeks in Iraq at the FBI's request for travelling without documents while his identity was checked, a US general said on Thursday. "Berg was in Mosul. He was travelling alone. The Iraqi police found him without any documentation. Iraqi police was suspicious and took him into custody" Brigadier General Carter Ham, who heads the Olympia Task Force, said in this northern Iraqi city ... http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1526618,00.html

Berg's E-Mails Depict Dangerous Travels
By JASON STRAZIUSO | Associated Press Writer
4:54 PM CDT, May 12, 2004
... In Baghdad on Wednesday, Dan Senor, spokesman for the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, said that to his knowledge, Berg "was at no time under the jurisdiction or detention of coalition forces." Senor would not specify why Iraqi police, who generally take direction from coalition authorities, had arrested and held him. He said the investigation was continuing ... http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-american-beheaded-victim,0,1643505.story

Iraqi police deny holding Berg
13/05/2004 13:52 - (SA)
Mosul, Iraq - Iraqi police never detained an American whose decapitated body was found last week in Baghdad, the police chief said Thursday, despite US insistence that Nicholas Berg was held by local authorities here shortly before he disappeared last month ... http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1526435,00.html

... Straziuso reported May 13, 2004, that Beth A. Payne, a "U.S. diplomatic official in Iraq told the family .... that <Nick> was being detained by the U.S. military when they lost contact with him for several days in early April, according to e-mails provided by the family Thursday." The Berg family showed the Associated Press an April 1 e-mail from Payne in which she wrote "'I have confirmed that your son, Nick, is being detained by the U.S. military in Mosul. He is safe. He was picked up approximately one week ago. We will try to obtain additional information regarding his detention and a contact person you can communicate with directly,' the e-mail said. ... In two e-mails later that day, Payne wrote that she was still trying to find a local contact for the family." As early as May 7, 2004, Nicholas Berg's family was relaying the story of Nicholas' detention by Iraqi police and the U.S. military and his subsequent release on April 6, 2004, after the Berg family filed a law suit on April 5, 2004 ... http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Nicholas_Berg

Perhaps one should simply take the POV that the Berg story is so riddled with coincidences and misrepresentations that one cannot hope to draw firm conclusions from it

[berni_mccoy]

48. Thanks, I'll stick with facts instead of conspiracy theories. He was killed in retaliation

for torture. And his murder was a direct result of the release of the photos. As was the increase in violence in Iraq.

[struggle4progress]

75. My post linked news stories and advanced no conspiracy theories whatsoever:

It is a fact that a number of news organizations reported after Berg's death that Moussauoi (convicted in the 9/11 conspiracy) had used Berg's email address and that the FBI had investigated this link; it is a fact that a number of news organizations reported after Berg's death that Berg had disappeared into custody in Iraq before disappearing again, that he had been released after his family filed a lawsuit, and that both Iraqi and US authorities disclaimed ever holding him; it is a fact that a number of news organizations reported after Berg's death that Berg had been arrested on suspicion of being a spy. It is, in fact, the case that the young man got about to a surprising extent, and that he shows up in a number of contexts -- but without actually knowing much about the country or really being able to speak the language. Given an odd story like this, which makes little sense, and which is contaminated by odd coincidences and contradictory claims, I see no reason to pretend I know much about it -- and I do do not prematurely terminate extend this unwillingness on my part to pretend that I understand the story: I extend this this unwillingness, to pretend that I understand the story, right to the very end of the story. Until a better verified and more coherent version of this story emerges, I do not think anyone is much justified in drawing conclusions from it


VISIONS AND SUSPICIONS: THE ENTREPRENEUR; Tracing a Civilian's Odd Path To His Gruesome Fate in Iraq
This article was reported by James Dao, Richard Lezin Jones, Christine Hauser and Eric Lichtblau and was written by Mr. Dao.
Published: Wednesday, May 26, 2004
... In January, the Iraqi police, thinking Mr. Berg might be an Iranian spy, briefly detained him while he was touring towers near the south-central city of Diwaniya ... wo months later, Mr. Berg would not be so lucky. Late on the evening of March 24, the Iraqi police in Mosul, apparently thinking Mr. Berg a spy, a smuggler or a terrorist, detained him while he was traveling to visit two business contacts. This time, he remained in an Iraqi jail for 13 days while the Federal Bureau of Investigation checked and rechecked his story ... http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/visions-suspicions-entrepreneur-tracing-civilian-s-odd-path-his-gruesome-fate.html

Nick Berg: 'Iraqi police thought I was an Israeli spy'
US officials, Berg family clash over details of who was responsible for slain US contractor's detention.
by Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
The Daily Telegraph reports Nick Berg, the US civilian decapitated on video by Islamic militants in Iraq, told friends in Baghdad that he had been arrested and detained in Mosul because Iraqi police thought he was an Israeli spy. The Telegraph also reports that Mr. Berg told friends that a few hours after he was arrested by Iraqi police, he was transferred to a US military facility, where he was in a cell with Syrian and Iranian fighters. Both the Telegraph and CNN quote Hugo Infante, a Chilean photographer, who saw Berg on April 6, shortly after he had returned to Baghdad after being released from detention ... http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0513/dailyUpdate.html

Michael Moore Says He Has Berg Footage
Thursday, May 27, 2004
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121125,00.html

Filmmaker to Show Interview to Berg Family
Published: Saturday, May 29, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/29/world/filmmaker-to-show-interview-to-berg-family.html

... AMY GOODMAN: Michael Moore interviewed Nick at a business conference here about investment in Iraq, is that right?
MICHAEL BERG: Yes, it is.
AMY GOODMAN: And gave you the videotape?
MICHAEL BERG: Yes, he did, and he promised, and has kept his promise, not to give the tape to the media or to anyone else, and not to use it himself ... http://www.democracynow.org/2004/8/24/father_of_beheaded_iraq_hostage_blames

[galloglas]

122. And your "proof" of these statements is what??

"He was killed in retaliation for torture."

"his murder was a direct result of the release of the photos".

"As was the increase in violence in Iraq."

You speak with certainty that only one of the five "Muslims" in your OP could have a right to do? C'est ne pas?

[galloglas]

55. I worked in investigating Nick berg death... and...

I will go my grave with the belief that the five men shown above, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, had nothing to do with Nick Berg.

I don't want to repeat the thankless work of explaining exactly why I, and others who looked into this, come to that conclusion, but that is what I believe. The task was thankless because of all the twisted paths of CIA spooks, the Military, our own liberal bloggers, RWCrazy bloggers, the Wonderful World of Kellogg Root Brown, Blackwater, etc. No one wanted to look at the evidence to see what really happened and everyone wanted to use Nick Berg as a emblem for their own cause. It was a really outstanding example of opportunism

The sad fact is that Nick Berg was killed. But to take his dead body up to defend Obama's decision to NOT release any documents and photos is disingenuous and damaging to the causes that are held dear by most here at DU, specifically, Freedom, Justice and Honesty.

The way we who have investigated see it, Nick Berg was killed by forces working for either A) western Intelligence services, B) Corporate entities in the Military-Industrial Complex, or C) other entities with on-going relations with A & B. There are many reasons to believe this aside from the physical evidence, but the physical evidence is plenty. I won't recap it here except to certain bulletpoint specifics below, but anyone who wishes can check WWW archives.

1) Berg left no arterial blood spurt, despite having (supposedly) his carotids cut, on camera. CSI would never have bought the premise of Al-Qaeda being behind the murder.

2) certain elements of the photo(the "Arabs") indicate that the men with Berg are not Muslim, but westerners. To avoid a dissertation on comparative culture, assume that the "Muslims" would no more wear some certain jewelry and clothes affects (shown in the photo) that Hitler would have worn a Cross of David while being photographed while addressing the Reichstag. I mean, those in the photo, and those who killed Berg, knew this would be a "Photo-Op" that would produce an iconic photo! But, not being Muslim and also being in a bit of a rush, they missed a few cultural details. enough to show the world the Muslims did not do the deed.

3) The Film of his murder was a manufactured film, highly altered. If it was Muslims doing the deed, in revenge, it would have had no need to be altered.

4) Poor Nick, because he was not tightly enough wired into the controlling structure of the Invading forces, was considered a "loose cannon".

The main point is this:

A) Nick Berg was not killed as reprisal for Abu Ghraib photos.
B) He was not killed by the indigenous forces.
C) The whole "Nick Berg is killed" story was fabricated by someone/thing which wanted to mold public opinion. Which raises the question, "Who would profit from this"?

Leaving the knowledge that:

A) The photos (if Obama lets them out) will cause no more "American deaths" that did the Abu Ghraib photos.

B) The Abu Ghraib photos did not cause Nick Berg's Death, or anyone else's that I know of.

C) The photos will only harm 1) those responsible for the photos, 2) those trying to coverup the photos, and 3)the sheltered innocence of the American people.

I say it is time for Obama to step up to the plate and do the right thing.

[berni_mccoy]

60. You wouldn't know what "do the right thing" is if it smacked you in the face, Mr. Conspiracy.

[vaberella]

64. Ahhh..he's a conspiracy theorists...~sigh~ n/t

[galloglas]

123. Nice comeback!!

[vaberella]

63. Have you thought about sending your "evidence"

to the O admin? Who knows, things might change.

[galloglas]

104. It is well known to them

as it was to the prior administration which was responsible for it. I suspect (hope) thaty Obama is playing rope-a-dope with these folks. That is something I will understand. However, if the photos are covered in perpetuity it would be a disgrace.

I really suspect Obama will find that he cannot withhold them in light of legal challenges and public furor, and relent. And that is all to the good. Unlike the author of this OP (and, perhaps Condi Rice) I am not of the opinion that "if my President does it, it is morally OK (or, in the case of Condi, "if my President does it it legal"). I am quite sure that Obama , also, feels it is "not morally OK" to refuse to release the photos. If I guess right, he simply needs someone to "force him to do so".

[FloriTexan]

57. Thank you, and lets not forget the victims.

There are victims of crimes in those photos. Regardless of how pixeled they are shown they will recognize themselves (if they are still alive) and their families will probably recognize them too. I do not believe that these victims would ever want these photos on every computer screen and every tv in the world. If I put myself in their shoes I would not want them shown. I would want the perpetraitors punished but I would be horrified if they were of me. They have already been abused and violated enough. Sharing these photos violates them even more.

[Forkboy]

65. Did you agree with Obama when he initially said he'd release them?

If so, isn't this a bit hypocritical?

And if not, did you feel strongly enough about it to claim Obama would have blood on his hands?

[berni_mccoy]

66. Why do you keep spamming my posts and why are you upset that Obama gave this decision some thought?

[Forkboy]

70. That's not even a good dodge, berni.

These are pretty simple questions. I'm sorry they're causing you such consternation. Perhaps you should think about why they're having that effect on you for a little while? Because I have to say, your dodging the questions I asked pretty much answers them for every one else.

[berni_mccoy]

73. Answer my question and I'll answer yours.

[Forkboy]

74. Your "question", such as it was, was just an attempt to dodge mine.

Just like this is. And a strawman to boot. But you know that.

Besides, I asked first. Why don't you try to answer the serious questions I asked, and then I'll answer your insipid attempt at changing the subject. Deal?

[berni_mccoy]

86. To answer your original question, I supported what was right from the beginning

And I gave Obama the benefit of the doubt that he considered all aspects of the decision.

He apparently did not, so I applaud him in changing his mind to give consideration for the soldiers who would bear the brunt of that decision.

[LittleBlue]

71. That's a dodge, you apparenty can't answer it

[uppityperson]

72. Ask Abeer what the release of Manchaca&Tucker's beheading photos gained her

Those who murdered her and her family, after gang raping her, are now in prison.

[Old Hank]

80. Yeah. Let's hide all evidence of torture, or else we'll be beheaded

Some logic there.

[depakid]

81. LOL -hey, it worked for Bush supporters!

[dave29]

92. he's attempting to prevent them for being released right now.

read that again and let it sink in.

right now. That is the important part.

They will most likely come out. He's not hiding anything. He is trying to protect our servicemen & women and their families.

[depakid]

113. You're actually shallowing that line of horseshit?

Damn- I was right with what was imlied in the previous post....

[sybylla]

84. The answer to your question is contained in your own post.

his death was carried out to avenge abuses of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison.

It was the abuse that brought the retribution. Not the photographs. Seems to me your own evidence does not argue against it but suggests it doesn't matter. The abuse happened. Soldiers, mercenaries, and contractors received retribution for it.

Your premise blames the messenger, not the message, though that is exactly what your own evidence says is the culprit.

Seems to me the time to worry about protecting our peeps is before we fucking torture, debase and abuse. To bury our shame, to look away from the terrible circumstances that were created in our name, will only make it easier for appeasers to deny we did anything seriously wrong and to propagate the lie that if we did we had a good reason.

Alternatively, with the terrible evidence before us, the vision burned into our eyes, every time the appeasers speak, they will bury themselves in their own heaping pile of shite.

[Uncle Joe]

88. This would be different circumstances, berni.

Cheney/Bush were the guilty maladministration drafting, legalizing and promoting the torture policies which led to those abuses. The last sentence in the highlighted portion of your post makes it clear, revenge for "abuses", not "photos." Cheney/Bush were in power and this hatred was directed toward them.

President Obama is fresh to the scene, he opposed Cheney/Bush policies of torture and from what I understand has rescinded them.

I believe those photos aired today under his administration would magnify the political will here in the U.S. to indict and prosecute those at the top most responsible for the abuses which led to Berg's beheading.

I believe if anything justice here at home for crimes perpetrated overseas at the order of the previous administration would enhance security, letting Dick Cheney and his cronies dominate the airways justifying those abuses which led to Berg's decapitation, and sweeping this under the rug as if the Iraqis and Afghanis living on the front lines will have the same short term memory as many distracted and disconnected Americans will only lead to more bloodshed and I believe a diminished ability of President Obama to affect positive change overseas as his moral authority becomes suspect.

If the American People including our generals are so afraid of the adverse reaction against our troops overseas by the publication of those radioactive photos, they need to stand up and call Cheney/Bush on their torture loving policies aka; war crimes which led to those "abuses" instead of remaining silent while Dick Cheney hogs the corproate media mega phone and drags the nation through the mud and the blood.

"The decapitation was released on the Internet, reportedly from London to a Malaysian hosted homepage by the Islamic organization al-Ansars. His killers claimed that his death was carried out to avenge abuses of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison."


Thanks for the thread, berni.

[martymar64]

98. I feel all Americans should be FORCED to view those photos.

It will make every American see what was being doing in their name. When the Allies liberated the concentration camps in Germany, they forced the local townspeople to tour the camps and to help bury the bodies. These Germans saw the trains going in and most assuredly smelled burning flesh from the camp down the road, yet they claimed ignorance as to what was going on inside places like Buchenwald and Dachau. Touring the camps robbed the Germans of any deniability in their contribution and acquiescence to this horror.
Americans MUST see those photos so that Americans can no longer downplay or quibble about whether an act was torture or not. We must be brutally shown that good Americans are as capable of brutality and inhumanity as the Germans were and that we can never deny these acts as the work of a "few bad apples".

[Baby Snooks]

99. Remember the words of Jacqueline Kennedy...

"Let them see what they have done."

[IndianaGreen]

106. Those people are dead because Bush and the Congress went to war in Iraq.

The Congress knew Bush was lying about WMD, yet they went along with him.

Many more will die in Iraq and Afghanistan for as long as we keep troops there.

[Moochy]

107. "blood will be on your hands"

worthless OP.

[Lilith Velkor]

114. What a load of shit.

[berni_mccoy]

118. I'm so glad you and so many others only have "shit" to offer.

[Forkboy]

119. People tend to offer what's been given to them first.

[berni_mccoy]

120. And you've offered the most heaping piles of anyone with your response spamming.

[Forkboy]

128. Apparently, anyone who pops into your trite little threads with some some uncomfortable questions...

...is spamming.

Is your mind truly that tiny, berni? And do even know what spamming means?

Try being an adult some day. You may just like it.

[RememberWellstone]

132. For real

it seems to be a time think and not knee jerk.

[Raineyb]

116. Not for nothing

but this thread of yours is as specious an argument for making excuses for calling national security bullshit for not releasing the pictures as the last one.

It's still a steaming pile of apologist bullshit.

[flyarm]

121. First of all those pictures belong to me and anyone who calls themselves American

We the people are the government, anyone doing anything in our names, are our employees.

My tax dollars and your tax dollars paid for those pictures, and we paid the salaries of those who took the pictures and those who committed torture..it was done in my name, with my money, by my employees.

Those pictures belong to "we the people" Those pictures belong to me.

We were told this was done by rogue soldiers, i don't believe that for one city second..

The soldiers that committed some of the crimes are in prison.

Do those pictures show others involved? Would those pictures perhaps prove that the soldiers in prison were not rogue, but that there were many more involved, with just as nefarious crimes?

Do you know the answer to that, because i sure as hell don't!

I don't give a damn what they tell us, i haven't believed a damn thing any of the so called employees of we the people are in our government.

I want those pictures released, without doing so, I will always believe there were many many more in my employee who committed even more nefarious crimes..that was done in my name , with my money , and that is not acceptable to me.

I remember not very long ago that almost everyone on DU was demanding the pictures all be released..and now because it is a democrat ..that call for the release has totally changed for some here.

The Hypocrisy is overwhelming, but that aside i don't give a damn what anyone here says..thise pictures belong to me and to the history books of this nation of ours, after all i know i have said often History repeats its self with ignorance.And we are all ignorant of what is in those pictures..i don't care what they tell you about them , or myself..i want to see the pictures.

I saw the pictures of some of the Holocaust victims,I saw pictures of giant open graves, and i saw the pictures of human beings that were so abused and starved almost to death..they are part of history and seeing them is a reminder of what we never want to become.

I have stood in Auschwitz and Dachau, it made me sick to my stomach and made me almost go to my knees, and those places damn well should make everyone feel sick to their stomach..they stand today as a Historical warning to the world...that the atrocities against humanity should never be allowed to be repeated again, and the people of the world must stand up and never ever allow such atrocities again. Should we not have held those responsible accountable by hiding the truth??????

These pictures being withheld are the historical proof of what was done to prisoners.

In my name.

And i want them released so it is never done in my name of my children's name ever again.

A couple years ago my husband and i were in the South Of France and we got lost in a small little town, and an 80+ yr old man came up to us and in broken English he came up and asked us if we were Americans..we of course said yes..and he started crying ,and said to us bin very broken english..thank you for keeping his family alive during the war.My husband told him his father landed in Normandy and came across to this little town..and the little old gent went to his knees and kissed my husbands hands and asked my husband to thank his father.

That is the Americans we were..

If these pictures remain hidden ..we will never know what kind of Americans the world see us as, and we can not stand tall and say..no, this is unacceptable..because it will always be percieved by the world that we hid the truth..that we have beoome what we used to have a high moral ground against..we will become the evil ..percieved or not..by hiding the truth.

I have been many many times in my life to Normandy and stood in awe each and everytime knowing what so many of my fellow Americans sacrificed,.the feeling is sad and anger, but most of all pride..for those who gave the highest gift ..their lives..The French in Normandy can not love us enough..i have been kissed and had my hand held and ..i never did a dang thing but go there..and show respect.

I always had the highest pride to say i was American.

I can no longer feel that..until we have 100% truth...anything less in my name is unacceptable.



And to think we can believe anyone..and i mean anyone ..is bullshit..I believe none of them without verification ..what was done ..with the use of my money , in my name.

How do we have any moral ground anywhere, when we hide the atrocities committed in our name? We must confront them and hold all responsible accountable.
If anyone bleieves that a handful of our soldiers only ..committed war crimes, that are documented in photographs, they are only fooling themselves.

WE must confront what was done in our name, not a minute too soon..only then can we stand with any moral ground again.

[galloglas]

125. Props for eloquent post !!

:thumbsup:

[berni_mccoy]

127. Your tax payer dollars also go toward keeping secrets in the interest of security.

Your tax payer dollars also pay President Obama to make informed decisions for you.

You have no basis or other information that justifies the release of the photos and your insistence that they are your property is baseless as well.

[flyarm]

133. NOT SECRETS OF WAR CRIMES!! AND DAMNIT..NOT SECRETS OF WAR CRIMES IN MY NAME!

we have laws..my nation was predicated on the rule of law..when laws have been broken those can not stand as secrets!..period..laws were broken..no man is above the law in this nation! PERIOD!
NO LAWS BEING BROKEN ARE PROTECTED AS AN INTEREST IN SECURITY..SHOW ME WHERE THAT IS IN THE CONSTITUTION..I WILL SAVE YOU TIME..IT IS NOT!

OH AND MANY CASES of our prisoners HAVE BEEN CALLED HOMICIDE..there is no statue of limitations on murder..and there is no state secrets that protect anyone for murder!

[TwilightGardener]

124. Good post. The release of the new photos is not worth the loss of one life in revenge.

I'm sure many on DU don't see it that way, though. They have contempt for the military and for contractors overseas, and don't care who's at risk, it's all about provoked outrage and helping Americans see the "ugly truth". I guess the photo-release folks don't have any loved ones in harm's way. Good for them I guess.

[Forkboy]

129. "I guess the photo-release folks don't have any loved ones in harm's way. Good for them I guess."

Here, go try that line in this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5653185

Don't chicken out now. I fully expect you take your well thought beliefs and express them to this person. I look forward to your post in the thread. :thumbsup:

[TwilightGardener]

135. So me and that poster disagree. And...so? Vast majority of people

who think it's a swell idea to publish the photos don't have loved ones serving in Islamic areas--I'm willing to bet on that. Because personally facing the result of any uprising or retribution really takes the fun out of pissing off Muslims and being able to trumpet some righteous anti-Bush/Cheney indignation and satisfy one's morbid curiosity. At the very least, it gives one pause. :thumbsup:

[Forkboy]

138. So, you said those for the release must not have family members in harms way.

I proved your pithy comment wrong. Move the goalposts all you want.

I still eagerly await you making your original claim in that thread. :thumbsup:

[AlinPA]

134. Bush**- Rove released the photos in 2004 to tell the world that the U.S. is bad-ass and

to taunt the enemy and to humiliate Muslims.

[ZombieHorde]

136. They seem to kill for any reason they can think of, they even used cartons as an excuse to kill.

Should we be allowed to draw silly pictures of Mohammad, even though some may kill if we do?