Abu Ghraib Photo Release - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tully Mars · 04-24-2009, 02:51 AM

Quote:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Defense Department will release "a substantial number" of photographs showing abuse of prisoners at prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.
Aggressive techniques to interrogate terror suspects are making headlines again.

Aggressive techniques to interrogate terror suspects are making headlines again.

The release will be in response to an open-records lawsuit filed by the ACLU, the group said in a written statement. The statement released late Thursday said the photos were taken at facilities other than Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

"These photographs provide visual proof that prisoner abuse by U.S. personnel was not aberrational but widespread, reaching far beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib," Amrit Singh, an ACLU attorney, said in the release. The photos are to be released by May 28, the ACLU said.

The Department of Defense announced in a letter addressed to the federal court on Thursday that it would release the photos.

In a copy of the letter posted on the ACLU's Web site, acting U.S. Attorney Lev L. Dassin said that 21 photographs would be released and that the government "also is processing for release a substantial number of other images."
Don't Miss

The lawsuit was filed in 2004 after the Bush administration denied a 2003 open-records request by the ACLU.

The 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled last year that the photos should be released. The Defense Department will not appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, Dassin said in the letter.

Attempts by CNN to reach the White House and Department of Defense for comment were not immediately successful.

Link

The Defense Department has been ordered by the 2nd Circuit to release photos of abused prisoners at Abu Ghraib. What do you think about this? Is it necessary to show the photos to public? Personally I'm not sure this the right thing to do. Not sure it's the wrong thing to do either. Myself I don't need to see them they can just tell me about them.

I also read this this morning...

Quote:

CNN) -- She said she was a scapegoat. She said she was just following orders. She said she was demoted unfairly.
Retired Army Col. Janis Karpinski was one of two officers punished over Abu Ghraib.

Retired Army Col. Janis Karpinski was one of two officers punished over Abu Ghraib.

Now, retired Army Col. Janis Karpinski can say: I told you so.

Karpinski was one of two officers punished over the aggressive interrogations at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Pictures of detainees caused outrage around the world when they were leaked to the news media in May 2004. The photos showed naked prisoners stacked on top of each other or being threatened by dogs or hooded and wired up as if for electrocution.

Throughout the ordeal, Karpinski maintained that she and her troops were following interrogation guidelines approved by top brass. Today, Karpinski has found validation in a few Bush-era memos released last week by the Obama administration.

"The outrage was over the photographs, because the photographs were living color of what those top-secret memorandums authorized," Karpinski said in an interview Wednesday. "So, it is unfair ... the soldiers may have moved through [the military justice] system, but they never had a fair court-martial. Not any one of them, because they were condemned as one of the 'bad apples.' "

Karpinski, then a brigadier general and commander of Abu Ghraib, was demoted to colonel because of the scandal. A second officer, Col. Thomas Pappas, the commander of the military intelligence unit assigned to Abu Ghraib when the offenses occurred, was relieved of duty and fined in May 2005. Seven low-ranking guards and two military intelligence soldiers -- described by then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz as "bad apples" -- were disciplined.

The memo, by then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee and then-Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven G. Bradbury, allowed the use of such tactics as keeping a detainee naked and in some cases in a diaper, and putting detainees on a liquid diet. One memo said aggressive techniques such as waterboarding, sleep deprivation and slapping did not violate laws against torture absent the intent to cause severe pain.
Don't Miss

"I will tell you that when I read those memorandums, when they were first released a few days ago, I did -- I did feel this sense of being able to exhale after five years," Karpinski said.

"That is what we have been saying from the very beginning, that, wait a minute, why are you inside pointing the finger at me, why are you pointing the fingers at the soldiers here? There's a bigger story here."

The Senate Armed Forces Committee released a report Tuesday, five days after the memos were released, stating that senior Bush administration officials authorized aggressive interrogation techniques on suspected terrorists, despite concerns from military psychologists and attorneys.

The report points to then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's approval of such techniques -- including stress positions, removal of clothing, use of phobias (such as fear of dogs), and deprivation of light and auditory stimuli -- in December 2002 for detainees at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. His OK prompted interrogators in Afghanistan and Iraq to adopt the aggressive techniques.

The guidance was delivered to Abu Ghraib by then-Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who was summoned to Baghdad from Guantanamo to evaluate the prison system.

"We had a myriad of problems in our -- in the prison system, not with detainees who were undergoing interrogations, but with Iraqi criminal prisoners," Karpinski said. "And instead of coming to give us support, he was sent specifically to work with the military intelligence interrogators to teach them the harsher techniques that were being used down in Guantanamo."

Shortly before he left office in late 2006, Rumsfeld said the day the Abu Ghraib scandal broke was the worst in his tenure as defense secretary.

"Clearly the worst day was Abu Ghraib, and seeing what went on there and feeling so deeply sorry that that happened," he said at the time. "I remember being stunned by the news of the abuse."

But Karpinski said the condition of detainees at the prison should have come as no surprise for the Bush administration.

"I think it was torture, absolutely. You know, I was never inside an interrogation room where they were conducting interrogations, but I read the memorandums many times over," she said. "Waterboarding is torture."

Karpinski said that while she was the commander of Abu Ghraib, she didn't personally witness any of the interrogation techniques.

"The first time I saw the photographs was at the end of January [2004]," she said.

Karpinski said she was ordered by Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the U.S. commander of operations in Iraq at the time, not to discuss the photographs or the investigation with anybody.

Now, despite any relief felt by the release of the memos and the Senate report, Karpinski said she will have a hard time shaking off the humiliation and disgrace brought on by the Abu Ghraib scandal.

"I think that, you know, you cannot dismiss five years of having to live under these accusations," she said, "and people associating my name and these soldiers' names with what they were so unfairly accused of."

Link

So Karpinski feels vindicated. What about the soldiers sitting in the brig? Are they going to let them out? Do you think they should be let out? The UCMJ is pretty specific about following ordered. But there's also a sections about the responsibility to refuse illegal orders. Seems like a complex issue to me. But if i were a young soldier and my officers ordered me to "release the dogs" I think there a damn good chance I'd have done as ordered. I think if these people, as it seems clear now, were indeed following orders they should be released and given honorable discharges. I think it sucks that the people issuing the orders let them hang and claimed they knew nothing about it. they expressed shock and outrage about shit they ordered. Then they allowed people carrying out their orders to be sent off to the brig while they retired with big fat pensions. I think Charles Graner and Donald Rumsfeld should trade current residences.

inBOIL · 04-24-2009, 11:19 AM

The photo release is a good idea; it's the only thing that might cause enough outrage to result in criminal charges for all of those responsible.
As for the young soldiers in prison, they deserve to be there. They had an obligation to refuse illegal orders and they failed to do so. The only thing they deserve but didn't get is the satisfaction of seeing their commanding officers in prison with them.

shakran · 04-24-2009, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inBOIL

The photo release is a good idea; it's the only thing that might cause enough outrage to result in criminal charges for all of those responsible.
As for the young soldiers in prison, they deserve to be there. They had an obligation to refuse illegal orders and they failed to do so. The only thing they deserve but didn't get is the satisfaction of seeing their commanding officers in prison with them.

I agree entirely. This does, interestingly, put a crimp in Obama's decision not to prosecute the torturing SOB's at the CIA because they were "just following orders." And well it should. They, too, should be heading to jail.

JohnBua · 04-24-2009, 03:43 PM

I don't care if they were tortured or not. Don't want to end up in Gitmo? Don't fight against the US. Its simple really. I shed no tears for them. If you think Islamic Terrorists are not laughing at us now you are misguided.

Tully Mars · 04-24-2009, 03:59 PM

That statement assumes everyone that ended up in Gitmo was or is guilty.

I seriously don't think that's the case and a major part of the problem. Though guilty or not I'd prefer my government honor the treaties it signs and not lower itself to behaviors we prosecute for when done by other countries.

JohnBua · 04-24-2009, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

That statement assumes everyone that ended up in Gitmo was or is guilty.

I seriously don't think that's the case and a major part of the problem. Though guilty or not I'd prefer my government honor the treaties it signs and not lower itself to behaviors we prosecute for when done by other countries.

I prefer my government err on the side that keeps me and my countrymen alive the longest. IF a few Islamic cavement get water poured on their faces, so be it.

Tully Mars · 04-24-2009, 04:24 PM

And when other countries treat our citizens/soldiers like that to keep their countrymen alive will you give them the same pass?

JohnBua · 04-24-2009, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

And when other countries treat our citizens/soldiers like that to keep their countrymen alive will you give them the same pass?

You think that France has any reason to do so? They wouldn't. And we don't do it to Frenchmen. The only nations that would torture us are the very nations that we are waterboarding. And they would still do it whether or not we stopped. We have nothing to loose but vital information.

Tully Mars · 04-24-2009, 05:06 PM

Looks like we got better info from people before we did the whole torture thing. Cheney's trying to get two doc's released now, not the whole doc's just a number of pages. But so far it look s like we got better info before we water boarded folks.

But none the less when we lower ourselves to their level we're no better then them. We executed Japanese soldiers for these very actions. Yeah that's not hypocritical at all.

Willravel · 04-24-2009, 05:14 PM

Show them during American Idol.

JohnBua · 04-24-2009, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Looks like we got better info from people before we did the whole torture thing. Cheney's trying to get two doc's released now, not the whole doc's just a number of pages. But so far it look s like we got better info before we water boarded folks.

But none the less when we lower ourselves to their level we're no better then them. We executed Japanese soldiers for these very actions. Yeah that's not hypocritical at all.

Yes of course we executed Japanese for this. They were the enemy. And they tortured us before we even had the chance to torture us. Learn from history. Nothing will get the Islamic Terrorists to stop hating us, stop trying to kill YOU, but totall conversion to their way of life. I would rather torture 1000 Islamics and find one thimbel full of information that be nice and play patty cake and fumble a ball that leads to one American death. The only way to stop them short of surrender, is to make them realise that killing Americans has too steep a price.

Willravel · 04-24-2009, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnBua

Yes of course we executed Japanese for this. They were the enemy. And they tortured us before we even had the chance to torture us. Learn from history. Nothing will get the Islamic Terrorists to stop hating us, stop trying to kill YOU, but totall conversion to their way of life. I would rather torture 1000 Islamics and find one thimbel full of information that be nice and play patty cake and fumble a ball that leads to one American death. The only way to stop them short of surrender, is to make them realise that killing Americans has too steep a price.

That's not how torture works, John. You don't use increasingly harsh techniques based on how devoted the enemy is. There's a point at which it becomes easier to diffuse hatred. Torturing someone that truly hates us will feed that hatred and will increase the chances of them lying intentionally. It increases their resolve.

Besides, according to virtually every interview of someone actually directly involved on torture, it didn't make a lick of difference, in fact it often lead to more difficulties. Traditional methods work according to the people in the world most capable of determining what works.

silent_jay · 04-24-2009, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnBua

...snip... Learn from history......

Oh if only the US administrations could do just that, sadly they don't want to or can't, who knows, maybe someday......

JohnBua · 04-24-2009, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

That's not how torture works, John. You don't use increasingly harsh techniques based on how devoted the enemy is. There's a point at which it becomes easier to diffuse hatred. Torturing someone that truly hates us will feed that hatred and will increase the chances of them lying intentionally. It increases their resolve.

Besides, according to virtually every interview of someone actually directly involved on torture, it didn't make a lick of difference, in fact it often lead to more difficulties. Traditional methods work according to the people in the world most capable of determining what works.

I don't care if they hate us more or less. I am saying if we think we can get a smidegeon of information that will save one American life, then torture away.

Willravel · 04-24-2009, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnBua

I don't care if they hate us more or less.

You should care. If they hate us more, they're less likely to provide information.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnBua

I am saying if we think we can get a smidegeon of information that will save one American life, then torture away.

Don't we already have a torture thread going? Torture is just as likely to cost American lives as it is to save them. If you really want to gamble with American lives because you'd like to exact vengeance that if you're extremely lucky might yield some information that's at best of questionable truth, I'm glad you're not in charge.

scout · 04-25-2009, 03:15 AM

I'm really trying to grasp the reasoning behind the release of photos. Why would anyone want to do something so asinine? The CIA/military is at fault here so place everyone involved before a "military tribunal" but there is no need to release photos unless it's for political gain or oneupmanship sorta thing which is entirely the wrong reason. It appears the Democrat party leadership was in cahoots and knew all along what was going on but never threw up a red flag until now. What's up with that?

ottopilot · 04-25-2009, 12:06 PM

let's get them all! ...all the purveyors of atrocities.

All the way back to the fire bombing of Dresden where approximately 500,000 children, women, the elderly, wounded soldiers and the animals of the zoo were slaughtered in one night.

Let's not forget Hiroshima, Korea, Vietnam, all the Iraq wars, the eastern Europe adventures under Clinton all the way up to Obama's itchy trigger-finger using drones and picking off pirates in the open sea.

I want to put FDR and Truman's corpses on trial for crimes against humanity. It all needs to be transparent. Let's get all the dead presidents.

Let's put every soldier, politician, and civil servant that served at any capacity up of war crimes. It is unfortunate that every member of congress that ever served on an intelligence, military, defense, or foreign affairs committee and their advisers would also need to be prosecuted. But this needs to be done.

Releasing these pictures is irresponsible.

filtherton · 04-25-2009, 05:35 PM

I think that the government should post the pictures, blown up, on billboards. I can't decide whether the caption would read "Your indifference makes you culpable," or "Pledge week at Limbaugh University."

Nimetic · 04-26-2009, 12:56 AM

If the actions taken were reasonable and nothing to be ashamed of, then the release of photos is no big deal.

Yeah... I know that it's more complex than that. But it's something to consider.

filtherton · 04-26-2009, 05:43 AM

I'm still not sure why it would be irresponsible to release the photos.

Everyone in the world knows that we torture. It isn't actually a revelation.

roachboy · 04-26-2009, 06:05 AM

the only way in which it can be seen as a problem to release these photos is if you are of the political persuasion that sees in hypernationalist cretinism a correlate of love as defined by eric segal. so the united states advances itself as upholding the rule of law blah blah blah as over against those nasty lawless Terrorists and in the process becomes what it is fighting and the conservatives here don't see a problem with that? so the issue for them is why compromise that Might Facade of American Imperial Power by releasing them? but the facade is already compromised. the party is changing location.

but if you think about it releasing the photos can be seen as a ritual action designed to repudiate everything the neo-cons stood for. this is what their politics led to. this is hwo far those politics compromised us. this is one of the ways that we can self-correct. this brings the image of the states a little closer to what the right likes to blab about. no wonder releasing them is a Problem for conservatives: through it they loose a little more of their claim to the things they purport to stand for--like law, the rule of law.

maybe someday there'll be a degree of honesty from the right and folk will own up to the fact that everything theyre arguing these days is about political self-preservation--that it attempting to salvage their politics from te wreckage that the implementation of those politics visited upon it--and nothing else.

JumpinJesus · 04-26-2009, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

let's get them all! ...all the purveyors of atrocities.

All the way back to the fire bombing of Dresden where approximately 500,000 children, women, the elderly, wounded soldiers and the animals of the zoo were slaughtered in one night.

Let's not forget Hiroshima, Korea, Vietnam, all the Iraq wars, the eastern Europe adventures under Clinton all the way up to Obama's itchy trigger-finger using drones and picking off pirates in the open sea.

I want to put FDR and Truman's corpses on trial for crimes against humanity. It all needs to be transparent. Let's get all the dead presidents.

Let's put every soldier, politician, and civil servant that served at any capacity up of war crimes. It is unfortunate that every member of congress that ever served on an intelligence, military, defense, or foreign affairs committee and their advisers would also need to be prosecuted. But this needs to be done.

Releasing these pictures is irresponsible.

Aside from the hyperbole, why not put every single person who committed crimes on trial? Is there some compelling reason why there are some citizens who should be exempt from obeying the law?

ottopilot · 04-27-2009, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JumpinJesus

Aside from the hyperbole, why not put every single person who committed crimes on trial? Is there some compelling reason why there are some citizens who should be exempt from obeying the law?

No, I'm saying we should get all of the bastards...war-time acts or not!

The real fun is rationalizing the actions of those we favor while prosecuting the others (legally or not) with bold righteous indignation. As long as it makes the masses feel all hopey-changey, that's what is really important.

I think Dresden-style fire-bombing should be allowed under the Geneva Convention. Water-boarding is way worse, so lets make that a war crime and put them all in jail. It all makes perfect sense. String-em up!

kutulu · 04-29-2009, 02:28 PM

From what I read the real fun is trollish responses that make light of the situation.

Jinn · 04-29-2009, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

No, I'm saying we should get all of the bastards...war-time acts or not!

The real fun is rationalizing the actions of those we favor while prosecuting the others (legally or not) with bold righteous indignation. As long as it makes the masses feel all hopey-changey, that's what is really important.

I think Dresden-style fire-bombing should be allowed under the Geneva Convention. Water-boarding is way worse, so lets make that a war crime and put them all in jail. It all makes perfect sense. String-em up!

You've stopped even pretending not to troll..

Willravel · 04-29-2009, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

I think Dresden-style fire-bombing should be allowed under the Geneva Convention. Water-boarding is way worse, so lets make that a war crime and put them all in jail. It all makes perfect sense. String-em up!

You're hatred for "terrorists" has lead you to essentially become one. It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.

ottopilot · 04-29-2009, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

You're hatred for "terrorists" has lead you to essentially become one. It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.

Yes kill them all... relax Will... merely extreme sarcasm to point out how ridiculous all this is. I hate no one and want to kill no one. However one should also see a bit of terrorism behind the releasing of these photos.

I would not object to releasing the pictures if they were matched with images of victims like Richard Pearl having their heads sawn from their necks. The Abu Ghriaib photos serve no other purpose but for political reasons. It's as shameful to use these pictures as political propaganda as it was shameful for the perpetrators who performed the acts.

---------- Post added at 01:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:25 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinn

You've stopped even pretending not to troll..

You've stopped even pretending not to call people trolls when you have no imagination. Can we stop with the name calling?

roachboy · 04-30-2009, 02:49 AM

so essentially, otto, you're arguing that there is no difference between the united states and a non-state "terrorist"group.
which kinda follows from your previous hyperbolics in which you implicitly equated the bush "war on terror"and world war 2, which you had to do in order to make your nonsensical claim regarding dresden.
your position would seem to be anything goes.

then because you politically and/or emotionally oppose obama, you equate the release of the photos of torture being carried out by the united states with terrorism.

then you say the photos are "political propaganda"...

classic.

there's really nothing to be said about this nonsense.

how about this:
i take it that you oppose the release of the photos.
do you have any actual arguments as to why?
or is it simply that the obama administration is doing the releasing?

i'm inclined to think the latter is the case.
if that's true, then there may well be no real arguments--you wouldn't need them---you just oppose it because of the source.
but that avoids everything of substance about why torture is a problem.

i can see why you'd want to avoid the actual questions.
so far you have.

so what's your actual position on this? is torture cool so far as you're concerned? if the party positions were flipped around, would you feel the same way?

04-24-2009, 11:19 AM	#2 (permalink)
inBOIL I have eaten the slaw	The photo release is a good idea; it's the only thing that might cause enough outrage to result in criminal charges for all of those responsible. As for the young soldiers in prison, they deserve to be there. They had an obligation to refuse illegal orders and they failed to do so. The only thing they deserve but didn't get is the satisfaction of seeing their commanding officers in prison with them. __________________ And you believe Bush and the liberals and divorced parents and gays and blacks and the Christian right and fossil fuels and Xbox are all to blame, meanwhile you yourselves create an ad where your kid hits you in the head with a baseball and you don't understand the message that the problem is you.

04-24-2009, 03:59 PM	#5 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	That statement assumes everyone that ended up in Gitmo was or is guilty. I seriously don't think that's the case and a major part of the problem. Though guilty or not I'd prefer my government honor the treaties it signs and not lower itself to behaviors we prosecute for when done by other countries. __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

04-24-2009, 04:24 PM	#7 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	And when other countries treat our citizens/soldiers like that to keep their countrymen alive will you give them the same pass? __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

04-24-2009, 05:06 PM	#9 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	Looks like we got better info from people before we did the whole torture thing. Cheney's trying to get two doc's released now, not the whole doc's just a number of pages. But so far it look s like we got better info before we water boarded folks. But none the less when we lower ourselves to their level we're no better then them. We executed Japanese soldiers for these very actions. Yeah that's not hypocritical at all. __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

04-25-2009, 03:15 AM	#16 (permalink)
scout Psycho	I'm really trying to grasp the reasoning behind the release of photos. Why would anyone want to do something so asinine? The CIA/military is at fault here so place everyone involved before a "military tribunal" but there is no need to release photos unless it's for political gain or oneupmanship sorta thing which is entirely the wrong reason. It appears the Democrat party leadership was in cahoots and knew all along what was going on but never threw up a red flag until now. What's up with that? __________________ "The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson

04-24-2009, 03:43 PM	#4 (permalink)
JohnBua Banned	I don't care if they were tortured or not. Don't want to end up in Gitmo? Don't fight against the US. Its simple really. I shed no tears for them. If you think Islamic Terrorists are not laughing at us now you are misguided.

04-24-2009, 05:14 PM	#10 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Show them during American Idol.

04-25-2009, 12:06 PM	#17 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	let's get them all! ...all the purveyors of atrocities. All the way back to the fire bombing of Dresden where approximately 500,000 children, women, the elderly, wounded soldiers and the animals of the zoo were slaughtered in one night. Let's not forget Hiroshima, Korea, Vietnam, all the Iraq wars, the eastern Europe adventures under Clinton all the way up to Obama's itchy trigger-finger using drones and picking off pirates in the open sea. I want to put FDR and Truman's corpses on trial for crimes against humanity. It all needs to be transparent. Let's get all the dead presidents. Let's put every soldier, politician, and civil servant that served at any capacity up of war crimes. It is unfortunate that every member of congress that ever served on an intelligence, military, defense, or foreign affairs committee and their advisers would also need to be prosecuted. But this needs to be done. Releasing these pictures is irresponsible. __________________ "It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

04-25-2009, 05:35 PM	#18 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I think that the government should post the pictures, blown up, on billboards. I can't decide whether the caption would read "Your indifference makes you culpable," or "Pledge week at Limbaugh University."

04-26-2009, 12:56 AM	#19 (permalink)
Nimetic Junkie Location: Melbourne, Australia	If the actions taken were reasonable and nothing to be ashamed of, then the release of photos is no big deal. Yeah... I know that it's more complex than that. But it's something to consider.

04-26-2009, 05:43 AM	#20 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I'm still not sure why it would be irresponsible to release the photos. Everyone in the world knows that we torture. It isn't actually a revelation.

04-26-2009, 06:05 AM	#21 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the only way in which it can be seen as a problem to release these photos is if you are of the political persuasion that sees in hypernationalist cretinism a correlate of love as defined by eric segal. so the united states advances itself as upholding the rule of law blah blah blah as over against those nasty lawless Terrorists and in the process becomes what it is fighting and the conservatives here don't see a problem with that? so the issue for them is why compromise that Might Facade of American Imperial Power by releasing them? but the facade is already compromised. the party is changing location. but if you think about it releasing the photos can be seen as a ritual action designed to repudiate everything the neo-cons stood for. this is what their politics led to. this is hwo far those politics compromised us. this is one of the ways that we can self-correct. this brings the image of the states a little closer to what the right likes to blab about. no wonder releasing them is a Problem for conservatives: through it they loose a little more of their claim to the things they purport to stand for--like law, the rule of law. maybe someday there'll be a degree of honesty from the right and folk will own up to the fact that everything theyre arguing these days is about political self-preservation--that it attempting to salvage their politics from te wreckage that the implementation of those politics visited upon it--and nothing else. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-29-2009, 02:28 PM	#24 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	From what I read the real fun is trollish responses that make light of the situation.

04-30-2009, 02:49 AM	#28 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	so essentially, otto, you're arguing that there is no difference between the united states and a non-state "terrorist"group. which kinda follows from your previous hyperbolics in which you implicitly equated the bush "war on terror"and world war 2, which you had to do in order to make your nonsensical claim regarding dresden. your position would seem to be anything goes. then because you politically and/or emotionally oppose obama, you equate the release of the photos of torture being carried out by the united states with terrorism. then you say the photos are "political propaganda"... classic. there's really nothing to be said about this nonsense. how about this: i take it that you oppose the release of the photos. do you have any actual arguments as to why? or is it simply that the obama administration is doing the releasing? i'm inclined to think the latter is the case. if that's true, then there may well be no real arguments--you wouldn't need them---you just oppose it because of the source. but that avoids everything of substance about why torture is a problem. i can see why you'd want to avoid the actual questions. so far you have. so what's your actual position on this? is torture cool so far as you're concerned? if the party positions were flipped around, would you feel the same way? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite