Go ahead. Pretend it`s okay to hide the torture photos.

[democrank]

What`s next? Burning the list of all the disappeared? Saying civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan don`t count? We could go on pretending and hiding and overlooking until there`s nothing left of what America once stood for.

What the hell are we teaching our young people? Our soldiers? That it`s okay to hang someone from their wrists for two or three days? That we can wire electrodues to someones genitals if we feel like it? That we can stand by while children are raped...as long as they`re not OUR children? That because we have a lot of power we can swagger and strut around anywhere in the world? That we can blow up anything we want to? Kill anyone we want to? Take over as many countries as we want to? Jesus. What has happened to us?

Any member of Congress worth a plug nickel should be standing in front of a microphone right now demanding an end to this barbarism and full accountability for those responsible. No hiding. No excuses. No stalling. No pretending.

If we think we`re doing our soldiers a favor by sweeping this under the rug, we`re dead wrong. Do you really think nobody in the world has any idea about what we`ve been up to in the torture department? Don`t you think our soldiers are LESS SAFE because of our torture policies? It`s a sorry day when our own representatives (and many of the people who elected them) stand up in support of torture....or at the very least, support covering it up.

[Dinger]

1. K & R

I agree with you.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ChiciB1]

13. Apology After Apology... Excuse After Excuse... What Administration

is this anyway?? Gee, where did that transparency go, that CHANGE we wanted, the truth that needed to be told???

And yet, even here people keep saying "he needs more time!" Has anyone ever thought that perhaps ALL of this is happening so fast because THEY can use THAT EXCUSE and move on??

Forget what was said, address it now and then people will forget BECAUSE after all he's just been in office a "short time" and needs to get his ducks in a row!

What ducks? And what next? These issues that have come up lately are the ones "we the people" wanted addressed and wanted something "good" to come out of! Instead, what I'm seeing is a "backing off" of some really large problems we have "HERE & NOW" and I feel a need to defend what I think is wrong.

No apology here, and come scream at me all you want! Truth is truth, right is right and PROMISES are PROMISES! Saying the same thing with different words is WRONG as far as I'm concerned!

[leftstreet]

3. K&R

[Echo In Light]

4. "Trust Us," Inc

[FLAprogressive]

7. scoot on over to GD:P, admire the latest picture thread, and shut up! ;-)

:P

[Cha]

20. Nah, it's more fun to stay here

and look at all the pissing and moaning.

[Cha]

19. Yeah, things have gone

so badly so far.

[livefreest]

51. let's not chastise those DUers who support Pres Obama on this.

what do you say to those DUers who fear releasing those pics would increase attacks on their loved ones who are still deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. this is not just about " trust Pres Obama, he has bigger fish to catch first". This is about their family who might have to face an increase in insurgency

[crimsonblue]

59. I'm sorry...

but morality and justice is more important than one person. We cannot allow torture in our country under any circumstances.

[livefreest]

61. i agree, but those who have loved ones still in Iraq (and it's not one), are afraid for

them. how do you convince those who the release of those pics will not be followed by a bloody insurgency? a child, a sibling, any loved one's security trumps any other principle.

[Mari333]

71. as the mother of 2 soldiers

release the photos. if they can help in any way to end the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan then so be it.
our soldiers wouldnt be in harms way if they werent in either of those places.
bring them home.

[livefreest]

74. well that's courageous of you

[LooseWilly]

91. *Sigh* Ok, I'll say it again. The public in Iraq and Afghanistan Already Know About Torture.

The pictures are nothing but additional evidence. After the last batch of photos... I can't imagine that anyone who tells a story about being tortured in Iraq or Afghanistan, by the US, is doubted. New photos are not liable to change that (unless they're that much worse... even in which case... as I said before... I don't think the Public in Iraq or Afghanistan has any doubts when these charges are brought to bear).

It's not like an Iraqi will say "Ahh, yes, Bilal... I know you said you were tortured, and you showed me those pictures on the internet... but now that there are these new pictures, Now I'm pissed off, and ready to attack Americans!!"

Does anyone really give the Iraqi and Afghan Public so little credit? Does the entire American Public think that the Iraqi and Afghan Public will react to the new photos like the American Public reacts to the latest American Idol news?...

From what I've seen from all the Arabs I've worked with over the years... I think hiding the pictures will only feed an already often paranoid leaning mindset (and, justifiably paranoid leaning, I'd say)... and I think hiding the pictures will only increase recruitments. As for "an increase in insurgency", I'm not buying it. I think it's hype that Obama's been sold... like a tasty ice cream cone.

[SIMPLYB1980]

5. I'm fine with a delay. These will come out.

We got the Abu Ghraib photos released against Cheney's unitary executive. Lots of reasons for the Obama administration to do this.

[democrank]

9. You might be fine with a "delay" but I`m not.

There`s no excuse for delaying justice for raped and tortured children. None.

[SIMPLYB1980]

10. Yeah black and white and all that, but think about this

nothing makes the MSM or the public want to see something more than telling them they can't see it. Many more people will look at this when it comes out if for no other reason morbid curiosity, and because they were told they "couldn't handle the truth". All kinds of reasons that Obama may be doing this.

[Howardx]

11. you seem mighty anxious to get your hands on those pics

oh im sure its all about "justice":sarcasm:

[Justitia]

14. Yes, these will come out. I can let this play out a bit, also. -eom

[lob1]

6. Total agreement here. By NOT

showing the pictures, we're not protecting ourselves, we're protecting the torturers.

[Sequoia]

30. Darth, Rummy, and Gonzo

and the Chimster 'cause he's "the decider". Why does the "liberal media" allow DC to even spout his snarling mug on the airwaves?

[lamp_shade]

12. I agree with The President. Now is not the time.

[progressoid]

18. Problem is, there will never be a good time.

We will try to make this go away and pretend it never happened.
Eventually, the damning evidence will be "misplaced".

[wileedog]

24. From TIME

"The Obama official said the president believes that the actions depicted in the photos should not be excused and fully supports the investigations, prison sentences, discharges and other punitive measures that have resulted from them. But the president does not believe that so publicizing the actions in such a graphic way would be helpful."

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1897930,00.html

YOU don't need to see the photos for those guilty to be punished.

[hootinholler]

31. Fine.

Empanel the grand jury and start the real investigation and I'll STFU about the photos.

Otherwise, yes I do need to see the photos.

-Hoot

[Javaman]

25. or worse; it will be compounded. nt

[pleah]

15. K&R

[Riverman]

16. ENOUGH!

If Obama demonstrates that he has the balls to threaten his campaign financiars by insisting on real health care reform - meaning fight with every breath he has to get Single-Payer medical care, and end the insanity by simply doing what he said he would do - improve America's image around the world, by publically, repeatedly denouncing torture and ending all such practices, releasing all documents and photos to allow the crimminals to be investogated, prosecuted and punished, then he would have our backs completely! If not, then he is a one-term failure of a president!

This is beyond sickening and deplorable!

[LaydeeBug]

98. He is already not doing that. nt

[MADem]

17. You need to see pictures to know that people were abused?

They're pictures associated with closed investigations that happened before Obama took office.

The courts will decide, in any event. Nothing is being swept under the rug--these incidents were already investigated. The investigations were completed and closed.

This is historical information the ACLU wanted. It's not "ongoing" stuff.

[Echo In Light]

21. But it can serve to get the public to demand holding the architects accountable

Most mainstream 'debate' about this doesn't even touch upon the long list of atrocities - it focuses only on the one aspect that was easy to spin a la the "is it torture?" evasion, water boarding. That makes it very easy for flag wavers to trivialize the war crimes, and adopt the safe, 'let by gones be gones' approach that the establishment powers obviously want as many agreeing with as possible.

[MADem]

27. The pictures are part and parcel of specific, completed investigations.

They don't add to any arguments with regard to approval of "enhanced interrogation/torture" techniques.

They're associated with specific investigations, they aren't a "How To" manual. In fact, the investigations were happening because these people who were investigated were going over the lines that the architects you speak of authorized.

This has nothing to do with "bygones." The people who were investigated, with these pictures used to prosecute them, were breaking BushCo laws--and these pictures were evidence used against them.

I don't see how it helps the situation. "Gee, look at that, how offensive. And the guy who did this was punished. My, my."

Of course, that's not what your average Jihadist will take away from the pictures, I suspect.

[Usrename]

36. Some people need to see pictures.

Some are still referring to this whole saga as a frat prank. They insist that nothing bad or immoral was done.

"I think it’s very, very important that we have a clear understanding that what happened here was an honorable approach to defending the nation, that there was nothing devious or deceitful or dishonest or illegal about what was done." - Dick Cheney, 4 days ago

[MADem]

37. The pictures are less remarkable than the Abu Ghraib pictures.

I don't know anyone with a brain who is calling this a "frat prank." If you're going to listen to the mouth breathers or the crazies, well, you're always going to find a batshit viewpoint. The majority of Americans find this whole BushCo torture business dispicable.

This bullshit you're hearing from people on this forum (who haven't seen the pictures, either) about child rape is apparently not accurate, either--simply hyperbolic language, without the slightest amount of proof.

These pictures are also from completed investigations--not ongoing ones. The people who did the stuff illustrated in the pictures have already had their day in court.

I'm guessing this quote is a fairly senior level offical at the Pentagon, someone in Gates' office, at a minimum:

One Pentagon official involved in the discussion said the photos showed detainees in humiliating positions, but said they were not as provocative as pictures of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib. The official said that the photos showed detainee nudity, and that some included images of detainees shackled for transfer. Other photographs showed American military personnel members with weapons drawn, pointing at detainees in what another official said had the appearance of “a war trophy.”

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to describe photographs that are the subject of continuing litigation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/us/politics/14photos.html?ref=global-home

[Usrename]

38. Seymour Hersh : The US government has videotapes of boys being sodomized

>snip

And I can tell you it was much worse, and the government knows it's much worse, than they’ve even told you. There are worse photos, worse videotapes, worse events. To The New Yorker’s credit we decided, not for censorship, but just how much can you, how much can you levy on Arab manhood, in public?

But Arabs, I will tell you, it’s not just the radicals — and we all know how this policy, this administration’s policies, in Afghanistan, too, and also of course in Iraq, has really done exactly the contrary of what they said they were going to do. They haven't ended the war of terrorism — they’ve expanded it — that’s nothing obvious , that’s totally clear.

But Arabs now, moderate Arabs, Arabs that normally would be doing the kind of — as you know, the overwhelming, the vastly overwhelming percentage of moderate Arabs deplored what happened to this country on 9/11, as much as anybody here — but those Arabs we’ve lost. They see us as a sexually perverse society. The sexual stuff we did to them is seen as just perversion. And I think we’re going to have consequences for a long time to come. There’s an awful lot of respect in the Arab world for Americans, I travel there all the time, and American Jews even, it’s not, nobody’s going to — I wouldn’t walk around Baghdad — but most of the world is very safe. We have a lot of problems.

>snip

And I would — debating about it . Some of the worst things that happened that you don’t know about. OK? Videos. There are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at , which is about 30 miles from Baghdad — 30 kilometers, maybe, just 20 miles, I'm not sure whether it's — anyway. The women were passing messages out saying please come and kill me because of what’s happened. And basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children, in cases that have been

[MADem]

39. The pictures under discussion--the ones the ACLU is asking for--do not contain that imagery.

So you're talking apples and oranges.

Apparently you don't "understand" that the material Hersh is alleging exists is not included in this grouping.

You won't get any "shrieking" videos if the ACLU prevails and the photos are released tomorrow. You'll simply get pictures that look similar to the ones that were already released, and aren't "worse" than those horrible ones were.

Don't shoot the messenger, don't lecture and hector, don't change the substance of the discussion, and don't provide links that aren't talking about the topic, which is the ACLU-requested photos. It's not helpful.

Sure, we know the Bush administration did lots of bad things. Tell us something we don't know. However, this ACLU release request has to do solely with photos that accompany COMPLETED investigations. Nothing else. And there's no "child rape" in those pictures.

If you want to rail about other excesses, that's a different subject, a different issue, and unrelated to these completed reports.

[Usrename]

40. You are trying to minimize the impact of not releasing the photos.

Photos that you haven't seen either.

You have made my point again for me.

We shouldn't even be having this discussion. It shoudn't be necessary, and it wouldn't be if the images were going to be released.

[MADem]

41. Please stop ascribing motives to me. You don't know me.

You need to stick to facts. If you want to discuss the "larger issues," by all means start a thread on them and discuss those larger issues to your heart's content. But stop trying to shove "Hersh" issues on this matter. They're unrelated.

What Hersh is talking about has absolutely NOTHING to do with this ACLU request.

I never claimed to see the photos, but I provided a link that talked about what was in them. The description is pretty clear cut. The Hersh allegations don't match the description.

And the people doing the talking were the President and someone from DOD.

Who, unlike you, were talking about the subject matter of this thread.

And my link, unlike yours, had something to do with the subject matter.

You have a nice day, now, Skippy. Go sell that convolution of unrelated issues to someone who might buy it.

[Usrename]

44. I didn't ever say a thing about your motives, Skippy.

I was commenting on your actions.


You ought to quit making stuff up. That's called a straw man.

[MADem]

48. Yes, you did.

You were ascribing the motive of "minimizing" to me, without proof. I'm not "minimizing" anything. I simply don't think that revictimizing these people in the current military environment is such a hot idea.

Have fun with your strawman, Skippy.

[Usrename]

64. Minimizing is not a motive.

It is an action.

There are many different reasons, or motives, that would cause someone to try and minimize this issue. It could be because they feel that torture is a legitimate process which they would like to see continued. Another motive for trying to minimize the impact of torture might be because it makes the person feel superior to all the other folks who want to shriek about how horrible it is.

See, those would be motives for doing this.

[MADem]

66. It is an action that accompanies a motive. Always.

And your accusations and insinuations are entirely untrue. But then, perhaps your motive is to "feel superior" because you're under the misapprehension that only you can possibly understand this issue, and the rest of us mere mortals, who are more interested in prosecutions that actually stick than prurient oogling of the misery of others, are somehow clueless bystanders.

There's nothing to be gained from eyeballing pictures that were attached to reports of completed investigations where individuals were punished for their conduct--by the Bush administration. Several years ago, in fact. All it does is revictimize the victims. It doesn't help in any way to prosecute the Rumsfelds or the Cheneys.

[ima_sinnic]

42. you believe everything "unnamed officials at the Pentagon" tell you?

of course they're going to say the pictures "aren't worse"! Did you think they would say, oh my god, we have never seen such atrocities?

since nobody seems to be proceeding with bringing the torturers to justice, We The People must conclude that a cover-up is going on and that Obama, whom I now firmly believe has been bought and paid for, is perfectly fine with that.

[MADem]

43. In this case, I do. Try reading the article at the link I provided.

For you to think that both the President and this other person are talking out their asses means you'd probably be more comfortable in the Conspiracy Theory forums than here.

There's no motive for the person to lie. If the person didn't want to answer the question about the characteristics of the pictures, he (or she) could have said "I don't know," or "I'm not able to characterize them." Instead, he (or she) got fairly detailed, indicating that the photos are similar to Abu Ghraib, that there's nothing "remarkable" in that context about them, only there's more of them and some autopsy photographs as well.

If the ACLU appeals and this 'thing' wends its way through the court system, and the pictures are eventually released, the person, who is probably, if not Gates, a senior individual on his staff, would be outed as a liar and his effectiveness as an unnamed source would be forever compromised. There's no call or reason for making shit up like that, particularly when the fate of these photos is not yet determined--it's not what anyone with half a brain would do.

Finally--and this is important--you, too, are going on about "bringing the torturers to justice." The people who tortured the people in these photos have already been brought to justice. These photos are attached to completed investigations that happened several years ago. These are not "new" cases. The cases that these pictures are related to have already been adjudicated. Do you want to bring them to justice AGAIN? Bring 'em back for a new beating? A little "double jeopardy?"

I am amazed how many people don't get this, no matter how often it is noted in every single news article on the subject. Too many people here are acting like these photos are simply part of a pile that they had hanging around, that nothing was ever done with them. These photos are exhibits attached to finished, settled, completed investigations.

Further, the reason that these people who committed these misdeeds were investigated is because they exceeded the guidelines provided by the Bush administration. One more time--they exceeded the guidelines provided by the Bush administration, those people who decided what "torture" was and what was simply "enhanced interrogation."

These (completed) investigations were of people who stepped over the line that was established by the Bush administration.

[Usrename]

45. You may be completely wrong about this.

"It is true that these photos would be disturbing; the day we are no longer disturbed by such repugnant acts would be a sad one. In America, every fact and document gets known – whether now or years from now. And when these photos do see the light of day, the outrage will focus not only on the commission of torture by the Bush administration but on the Obama administration's complicity in covering them up. Any outrage related to these photos should be due not to their release but to the very crimes depicted in them. Only by looking squarely in the mirror, acknowledging the crimes of the past and achieving accountability can we move forward and ensure that these atrocities are not repeated.

http://aclu.org/safefree/torture/39587prs20090513.html



Don't just assume that we are all too dumb to get this. The torture videos that were destroyed were also supposed to be a part of one of those cases, and they have already been shreaded.

The argument seems almost inconsistent with itself. The photos are not that bad, so they must be kept secret.

[MADem]

47. That's an opinion.

Like yours is. Like mine is. And we know what opinions are like. I don't agree with that opinion. I do believe that the situation on the ground in Iraq and the 'Stan would be adversely impacted by release of these pictures. I think Obama made the right call.


I also happen to understand and appreciate the sad reality of the "spring offensive." The weather sucks in Iraq and Iran. Winters are unpleasant, and summers are horrible. Spring, though, is a time when the weather is beautiful, flowers are in bloom, and young men's thoughts turn to IEDs, RPGs, and targeted assassinations. They don't need any more encouragement.

I don't "assume that we are all too dumb to get this." I simply agree with the Pentagon on this issue. I also think that some of the people who perhaps aren't "too dumb to get this" are culturally obtuse, or worse.

I don't need to see the butchered body of Sharon Tate to know that Charlie Manson did a bad, bad thing. I don't expect attorneys general from sea to shining sea to regale me with graphic images of every crime scene, just to "prove" to me that something bad happened. I understand and respect the concept of victim privacy. I also think that many of the people clamoring for these pictures (and almost hoping for images of child rape--I've seen several insistent posts that that sort of image "has to" be in this batch, when that isn't the case) have a seriously disturbed, voyeuristic issue that they might want to address with a trained professional (and if the shoe doesn't fit, by no means should you or any other reader wear it).

The cultural sensitivities that exist in the Arab and Southwest Asian cultures are very different from the attitudes we share. The concept of personal SHAME (something people here have lost, entirely--and they could do with some of it back, IMO) is a real thing. They often think if they find themselves in a bad situation, it's their fault. They've done something that caused God not to smile on them. The will of God is a real thing--Inshallah isn't just a toss-off expression.

How do you think they get a "good girl," a "nice, home loving, non-political woman" to become a suicide bomber in Iraq? They rape her, and "ruin" her, so her only recourse is to kill herself--and the easiest (and most "cleansing") way to do that is with a vest.

Many of these people depicted in these images haven't even given their families the full details of what they endured. Why? SHAME. They simply took the cash settlement and went on with their lives. They don't want to see their own, still recognizable faces, with the lousy little black bar that conceals nothing over their eyes, plastered over the internet or used to rally others to more violence. They don't want to see their naked bodies on display. It's humiliating for them, and victimizing them twice.

Further, I don't appreciate precisely what is accomplished by displaying the suffering of these victims, either. So people like you can go "See? See? See how BAD Bush was?" And even that's stupid, because the people who did that stuff were punished for doing this under the Bush regime.

Even the people who wrote the "bad guidance" for the Bush regime found the conduct depicted in these pictures to be "over the line." You don't advance the cause of punishing those "bad guidance writers" by waving these pictures around--you simply give them cover to say "Yes, we thought that was horrible and that's why we punished the perpetrators. See, we're not so bad--why, we had STANDARDS, too!"

There's a lot of convoluting going on here. Some people persist in thinking that release of these photos will somehow aid in the punishment of Bush--it won't. Bush and Company did not endorse this behavior. They endorsed plenty of bad stuff, but not this--and they were clever enough to put it in writing, too. It will simply give the Bush regime cretins a venue to point out that they were appalled as well.

[Usrename]

63. What the...

"Further, I don't appreciate precisely what is accomplished by displaying the suffering of these victims, either. So people like you can go "See? See? See how BAD Bush was?" And even that's stupid, because the people who did that stuff were punished for doing this under the Bush regime."


There were 25 murders, people that died from being tortured to death.

Are you really saying that the murderers have been punished?

:wtf:


Why do you assume that there is a difference between the BTK serial killer and this current crop of murderers? Dr. Mengele was a real person, not a figment of the radical left's imagination. There are real torturers running amok in our government.

:wtf:


Everyone has already been punished?


:wtf:

[MADem]

67. These investigations are completed. Every person depicted in those photos

who is abusing a prisoner has been adjudicated.

There have been over four hundred instances of prisoner abuse since the wars fired up, you know. The people who have been punished have gotten everything from a slap on the wrist, to fines, to NJP, to courts-martial, to jail.

The events depicted in the photos, and the punishments that the perpetrators got, happened several years ago too--while Bush was President. They were punished because they "went over the line" authorized by the Bush Justice Department goons.

Because you're either dull of comprehension, or deliberately "not understanding" what I am saying just to be a "WTF" smartass, let me make this clear to you--read slowly: Every person abusing prisoners in those pictures has been punished.

Got it? Those pictures are attachments to completed investigations. Investigations that were undertaken during the Bush administration.

So how does looking at these pictures of people who have, since the photos were taken, been meted out punishment (many are still in jail), and their victims, advance the cause of "justice?"

The people who still have some 'splainin' to do aren't even IN those pictures.

While you're "proud" of yourself for wanting to eyeball pictures of people being humiliated, and their captors who have already been punished, Cheney and Rumsfeld and others draw closer to the grave and are slipping away from any sort of accountability. These are the people who need to testify in open hearings and explain themselves. The blueprint for prosecution of these people is the Senate Report on this matter, not a small pile of completed investigations/Bush era low-level prosecutions with disgraceful photos attached that the ACLU requested as part of a FOIA.

[Raineyb]

69. And what of those who ordered it?

Clearly this is more than a "few bad apples" that have been the talking points of late from our government. We haven't begun to properly address what happened and I suspect that hiding these photos is hiding evidence that the torture was a hell of a lot more widespread than we've been told.

[MADem]

73. Look you need to read the full discussion. I'm not going to

continue to repeat the same things over and over. If you really want my answer to your question, you'll find it in the responses I have made in this thread. The link to the Senate Report, that I provided elsewhere, demonstrates clearly that there are WAY more than a "few bad apples." A guy named RUMSFELD, and others, are named in that document--and they aren't named "Man of The Year" either.

You want to get "those who ordered it?" Base your hearings and inquiries on the SENATE REPORT--not a stack of photos of abusers who have been convicted--by BUSH--and who haven't been able to point a finger up the chain.

The photos aren't hiding anything. That's cosnpiracy theory talk. The pictures are similar to the shit we've already seen--disgusting, offensive and humiliating. But there's nothing "new" in them. How do we know? Because the pictures are described in the completed reports.

Again, read the full discussion, and read the two hundred and some-odd page Senate Report. That's where the smoking guns are, not in pictures of victims and their low-level, convicted abusers

[Usrename]

76. I'm convinced that you don't what you are talking about.

Did you know that at least 21 people were tortured to death?

>snip

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) released documents of forty-four autopsies held in Afghanistan and Iraq October 25, 2005. Twenty-one of those deaths were listed as homicides. The documents show that detainees died during and after interrogations by Navy SEALs, Military Intelligence, and Other Government Agency (OGA).

“These documents present irrefutable evidence that U.S. operatives tortured detainees to death during interrogation,” said Amrit Singh, an attorney with the ACLU. “The public has a right to know who authorized the use of torture techniques and why these deaths have been covered up.”

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/7-us-operatives-torture-detainees-to-death-in-afghanistan-and-iraq/

Who was punished for these crimes? I haven't heard of anyone punished for any of these murders. Were they convicted or acquitted? What what was their punishment?

Or are you arguing that the photos do not contain any images of the victims of any of these crimes?

How do you know such a thing? Did some anonymous pentagon official make another statement or something? Do you have a link?

[MADem]

77. Did you know that at least four hundred abusers responsible for prisoners have been punished?

I don't think we're "done" with this issue, but looking at pictures of people who have ALREADY BEEN PUNISHED with their victims isn't the way to do it.

But you keep buying off on that Big Distraction, like it means something.

[Usrename]

78. In other words, no one has been punished for torturing folks to death.

Is that right?

Who are these 400 people who have been disciplined? Is there a public record or anything?

[MADem]

80. Which is why I advocate using the SENATE REPORT as a blueprint,

rather than playing the media game of distraction, like so many are doing.

The ACLU has the records, as I have said--over a hundred thousand pages worth. They've posted them online. DOD has them, too, but they're harder to access. They're public records, of everything from NJPs (article fifteens) for peripheral types, to courts martials, fines and jail time, and OTH discharges.

The Senate Report names names--like Rumsfeld, Gonzales, and others. These pictures everyone thinks mean something (and are really simply a revictimization of those who were abused) show us people who have already been punished, with their victims. It might make some feel good to look at them and harrumph, but it doesn't get Rumsfeld out of his featherbed and into a cell, now, does it?

I'd like to see open hearings by a joint session of the Armed Services Committee or the Judiciary Committee--either or. Let's get to the bottom of who ordered this shit, and how it was allowed to go on for so long. The more time we spend farting around eyeballing pictures of victims and already-punished perps is time wasted that could be used to hold people accountable. After all, Congress only works a few months out of the year. They should take that Senate Report and use it to craft a damn witness list, for starters.

[Fumesucker]

81. Were you against releasing the photos before Obama changed his mind about releasing them?

In other words, have you been consistent?

You appear now to be dead set against releasing the photos, were you critical of Obama when Obama stated he wished for the photos to be released?

[MADem]

82. I didn't even think about it, to be frank. It didn't hit my radar until after he made the decision.

So I honestly can't tell you if I would have changed my mind, in hindsight.

I will say that I do think he's considered it from all angles. I think he's taken advice and made a decision based on that advice.

I also think that, because we KNOW already what is depicted in the photos (they are described in the reports), that there won't be anything "new" or "freshly horrific" in them. It will simply rip scabs off old wounds, and not advance the cause of justice in any significant way. They'll provide a focus for new outrage over old crimes, is all.

I also think that we don't need to see "more of the same" right before he goes to Egypt. Egypt is where they grow Taleban leaders, after all.

But hey, if we're talking about pictures, like I said, we're not examining or discussing the Senate Report. No one here gives a fuck about it, and it's the best document in town if one REALLY cares about these issues.

[Fumesucker]

84. Apparently then you have no posts up against releasing the photos

That were put up before Obama changed his mind on the subject.

Perhaps you can understand how some very cynical people could perceive your position on this matter as being somewhat less than completely sincere?

[MADem]

85. Look, if someone doesn't focus on an issue, they don't focus on an issue.

I don't have any posts up griping about the subject before it became controversial because it wasn't on my radar. No controversy, no notice.

It's not like there were a thousand threads on the front page saying "Oh, happy day--I can't wait for Obama to release the photos!!!" Or "Who here is "iffy" on the topic of Obama releasing those photos?" or "POLL--Who approves/opposes release of prisoner pics?"

There was no real discussion of this subject until the court decision followed quite promptly by the reversal of view on the part of the administration. It was only then that the "controversy" developed.

If people want to find my failure to comment on a subject before it became controversial somehow suspicious, well, they really need to get lives!

[Fumesucker]

86. If you were so opposed to the photos being released

Then the fact that Obama wanted to release them would have been controversial for you at least.

The same arguments apply now on both sides of the issue as applied before Obama changed his mind on the photo release.

[MADem]

87. I can't help you learn to comprehend what you read. I never said I was 'so opposed'

in the first place. That's your desired characterization, to create a phony point of opposition, and it's a false one.

It's appropriate to say that I agree with Obama's assessment of the issue.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

[Fumesucker]

88. Obama's "assessment" made a 180

Which "assessment" are you referring to, the one to release the photos or the one not to release them?

If you have agreed with both assessments then you should point out what facts have changed or what logic has changed in the meantime in order to make you change your mind from one position to the other.

And I deduce you are concerned about the photos being released by the amount of energy you put into arguing about the subject. Similarly you can see that I'm interested in seeing the photos released by the fact that I'm also pursuing the subject, albeit from the opposite side.

[MADem]

89. If you can't figure that out, you haven't been reading the thread, and your only purpose

in engaging me isn't to discuss, it's to act like a jerk.

Read what I've written, and stop acting foolish. It doesn't make you look "cool." It makes you look childish.

[Fumesucker]

90. Calling names is what actually looks childish..

I have read the thread and I don't see what has *changed* either in facts or logic to justify a 180 in the policy as regards the releasing of the photos.

I've seen a lot of arguments against releasing the photos, but I haven't seen any that would have been significantly different two weeks ago.

[MADem]

92. It sure does. Keep that in mind, Look, you and your alter-ego can have a nice day.

I'm not going to repeat, over and over again, what I've already written just because you didn't get it the first several times I said it.

Read the thread, and my views are quite clear.

Or don't. I really don't care.

[Fumesucker]

93. Alter - ego?

Are you accusing me of sock puppetry?

More name calling.

I didn't ask anything at all about your "views", I asked what *facts* or *logic* have changed in order that a complete 180 on the subject of releasing the photos is warranted.

[MADem]

94. You always show up with the same little buddy. Funny, that.

Read the thread if you want to know my views on this matter. I'm not going to engage in bullshit games with you.

[Fumesucker]

95. Always?

Little buddy?

I don't pay enough attention to the names of posters to have a clue what you are babbling about.

Your views are fairly obvious and I wasn't accusing you of making a secret of them, that's not the point of my posts.

I was asking about what has changed to cause Obama's policy on this matter to completely reverse, this is a question that no one seems able or willing to answer.

If it will inflame Muslim opinion and endanger our troops this week, then that would have done the same last week.

And so on through all the arguments, pro and con, that I have seen, I've seen nothing very time sensitive in these arguments.

[MADem]

96. Always. Have a nice day, you two. NT

[Usrename]

99. Sure, but you are wrong on the facts. Completely wrong.

"The Senate Report names names--like Rumsfeld, Gonzales, and others. These pictures everyone thinks mean something (and are really simply a revictimization of those who were abused) show us people who have already been punished, with their victims. It might make some feel good to look at them and harrumph, but it doesn't get Rumsfeld out of his featherbed and into a cell, now, does it?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5647999#5670830

You don't have any evidence at all that the photos do not include any pictures of detainees that died under torture. None. And still you insist that all the victims in the photos have been avenged for their treatment. That is just some sort of faith-based argument not rooted in reality.

"There was no real discussion of this subject until the court decision followed quite promptly by the reversal of view on the part of the administration. It was only then that the "controversy" developed."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5647999#5670861

This is wrong on so many levels. First, the court ruling took place back in Sept, before Obama won the election. Also, in response to the court ruling, the Obama administration claimed that they would lose on any appeal, making such an appeal useless. This was just last month when they issued a statement that an appeal was a waste of time and money.

snip>

The Justice Department letter, signed by Acting U.S Attorney Lev L. Dassin, follows a September 2008 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit requiring disclosure of the photos and the court's subsequent refusal in March 2009 to rehear the case, the ACLU said.

snip>

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Friday that Department of Justice lawyers concluded they would lose if they fought a judge's order to release those photos. Gibbs said President Barack Obama is not worried his political agenda will be compromised by pictures depicting abuse under his predecessor. The pictures will be released by May 28.

http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/articles/2009/04/24/white_house_no_point_appealing_photos_lawsuit/

[MADem]

100. You're making shit up and putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.

I'm not going to play this bullshit game with you, or your friend.

[Usrename]

103. These are direct quotes from your posts.

What.ever.

You have a great imagination. I'm pretty sure that the techical term for you accusing me of making shit up is "Freudian Projection" or "Psychological Projection."

I quoted you, I didn't make any shit up.

[MADem]

105. I'm talking about your non-italicized, out of context comments, Tag Teamer.

Say hello to your little friend.

What. Ever....indeed.

Have one of those nice days, baiter.

[Usrename]

106. I was just having a simple conversation here.

And trying to explain to you why I think your assumptions are not necessarily correct.

[MADem]

107. Have a nice day. nt

[Usrename]

108. It's nightime here.

thanx anyhow

[Badgerman]

22. Obama is dead wrong or lying...

"..."At the end of that meeting, the president directed his counsel to object to the immediate release of the photos on those grounds. ... strongly believes that the release of these photos, particularly at this time, would only serve the purpose of inflaming the theaters of war, jeopardizing U.S. forces, and making our job more difficult in ..."

Obama is dead wrong with this explanation. Since he is no dummy you have to conclude he is lying for a reason. Why it is a wrong reason given: If the photos were released AND at the same time Executive orders signed forbidding ever again to use these methods AND introducing law to make such actions forever illegal, with very harsh punishments for infractions, THEN the world, the radicals included would see that we are serious. But not pursuing prosecutions for torturing, nor even meaningful investigations, and further refusing to make public evidence of gross violations, in this case phots with NO national security importance, is sending the clear, and loud message to the whole world that this administration will consider using torture now and in the future.

Now tell me again folks how this differs from 365 days ago!

[villager]

23. hopelessness we can believe in!

n/t

[CTyankee]

26. There going to be published anyway. Anybody remember "The Pentagon Papers"?

I guess Obama does not want to be the one who releases them. He's a former Constituional law professor. He knows what's gonna happen. It's probably a smart move on his part...

[adamuu]

28. well... maybe for a little while... let it sink in

maybe Obama didn't know what there was?

[MisterP]

29. yellow dog/pants "dems": May 2: we weren't told; May 3: the CIA's trying to frame us; May 10:

if we told, we'd be tried, or Cheney'd nuke a city and our share of Congress might go down! if you disagree with the yellow pants "dems", you don't understand the pressures of office!!!111

[FLAprogressive]

32. hahaha yellow pants dems

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## 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.

[Wednesdays]

34. K&R

:kick:

[LibertyorDeath]

35. Rec a 1000 Recs!!!

Thank you for saying it so well.

[hatrack]

46. When you're lancing a boil, you don't drain half the pus

eom

[Raineyb]

49. Thank you.

I am absolutely disgusted by the number of people willing to make excuses for this bad decision. I was not fine with Bush trying to hide the photos and I'm not fine with Obama doing it either.

Regards

[livefreest]

50. i really want those pics to come out.

but what do you say to those DUers who are concerned for the safety of their loved ones still serving in Iraq? they believe releasing these torture pics will increase attacks on our troops in the Islamic world

[marauding liberal]

52. K & R

:kick:

for effin CHANGE and TRANSPARENCY!

[TexasObserver]

53. Failure to make full disclosure is Guilt by Cover Up.

Is the person who covers up really any better than the one who commits the misdeeds?

Obama is wrong on this one. He's far too concerned with creating waves than is addressing responsibly the issue.

[Raster]

54. Not O.K.!

:kick:

[jeff30997]

55. K&R

See no evil hear no evil speak no evil,My ass!Make the pics public and prosecute.

[Juan_de_la_Dem]

56. Dead on

[spanone]

57. actually, we've already seen torture photos. electrocutions. whips. dogs.. death

[EFerrari]

62. And it wasn't enough because that program went on another 4 years.

[LibDemAlways]

58. "Any member of Congress worth a plug nickel.."

Unfortunately, there are only a handful of Congressmen/women even remotely interested in taking on issues such as this. Most are too busy lunching with lobbyists and building their campaign coffers to give a shit about anything that matters. The American people were sold down the river long ago and the sad truth is NO ONE represents us.

[florida08]

60. Here's the point on the pencil

Do you really think nobody in the world has any idea about what we`ve been up to in the torture department? Don`t you think our soldiers are LESS SAFE because of our torture policies?

No doubt, Al Jazeera has posted the pictures over and over again and articles about the abuse. I believe that is the issue. The damage has aleady been done. Now it's time for adjudication. Well said.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/05/2009511154227312126.html

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/04/2009416174526284984.html

[piratefish08]

65. transparency? whatever.

the truth?? you can't HANDLE the truth!

sad. disappointing.

[hayu_lol]

68. Obama missed an opportunity to let the light of day...

strike these pictures. These pictures will be released by another country, I believe that Australia has already released some of the new ones.

Had Obama released them immediately, that would have told the world that we acknowledge what we have done and are taking steps to really nail the criminals involved. To hide these, when they will come out anyway, was a foolish penny-saved, pound-foolish move.

The torture pics are known to the world. They are not secret. Bush pulled the same stunt whenever he thought he could get away with it.

Open the photos to the world to see, then use the leverage to go after the 'perps' in earnest using the additional pressure for action generated by the pics.

To the poster who claimed that Obama was a Constitutional Law Professor, he was not. He was a lecturer--the lowest academic rank and one usually filled by a grad student.

[Lord Helmet]

83. well not exactly on one point

"To the poster who claimed that Obama was a Constitutional Law Professor, he was not. He was a lecturer--the lowest academic rank and one usually filled by a grad student."

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html

Due to numerous press inquiries on the matter, the school released a carefully worded statement saying that for his 12 years there he was considered to be "a professor."

UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

[laureloak]

70. No, chose the right time to release them. AFTER peace.

[Mari333]

72. people who defend Obama's coverup

remind me of the people who defended Bush's coverup.

[TexasObserver]

79. merci, mari

I have to agree, and I really like Obama.

[Marr]

102. Indeed.

[defendandprotect]

75. k i c k

[alarimer]

97. And this is in response to a lawsuit which was settled last month.

When the Administration AGREED to release the photos.

Then Obama goes back on this agreement. This is something Bush would do.

[Luv nut]

101. Well.........

Obama isn't going to show them.

Another broken promise?

We all voted for him..........

[LWolf]

104. It's not okay, and no one can make it okay. nt