Your argument is disingenous and dishonest. You accused me of hypocrisy based on previous statements on other issues -- your words. I'd like to see those previous statements on other issues. You are attempting to slither out from a snide accusation that lacked foundation. Back up your accusation with a previous statement on another issue or present your apology.

As to your reference to my statement on privacy in private, you deliberately ignore the strong distinction I drew between public information and private information. The information in question is undeniably public information. You mix two statements from two different contexts that are not conformable. This is deceitful.

Oh, please. I am not going to go through all of your posts. Everyone is free to read what they want to into this. One of the primary defenses of the Patriot act was the fact that "only the guilty have something to hide", which I disagree with. I feel that the individual's right to privacy is important, and not solely for the guilty. You have said as much here. I was basing my assumption on the fact that you seem to be a reasonable person, who believes in privacy rights. I was pointing out to you the error of your blanket statement, and I certainly didn't intend for it to lead to this tangent. My bad, I apologize.

Fair enough. For the record, I have never believed that anybody has a right to privacy in public information. Your dental records are private information, and nobody has a right to poke into those without your consent. But public information, such as video of a person walking through a shopping mall, remains public, and the photos in question are clearly public information.

That ugly digression behind us, can you turn to the more substantial case I make concerning the difference between long-term costs and short-term costs of revealing these photos?

Okay. I think that the short term costs of disclosure outweigh the long-term costs of nondisclosure. I don't think there will/ would be any long-term gains whatsoever with the release of these photos. Praise for the release of the first photos (and report) has been (not surprisingly) lacking. This is the case even though it is a clear testiment to the freedom of our press, and the working military legal system in action. If there were some "salutary effect" of such a confession we should have seen at least a hint of it by now.

One more thing I wish to add, since you mentioned the ugliness of war and pictures offer a truth that must be seen. I agree in part, but it's important to remember that pictures are the equivalent of soundbites. Controlled World war II photos easily make the Allied powers look evil and the Axis saintlike. I remember seeing images of toothless haggard Soviet women standing in bread lines during the cold war (now, basically every Supermodel is from one of the former Soviet block countries), and the Soviets used to show the homeless living in boxes in the United States to their citizens. Photos alone are basically propaganda, and offer no context whatsoever. No sane government should offer propaganda photos to the enemy at a time when its forces are in direct danger under which that government placed them.

This is of course a completely personal judgment, as I doubt that we could bring to bear any convincing evidence here. The closest evidence is probably the conclusion that the business world has come to, that it's best to come clean, but that's business and is therefore too far away from this topic to be really convincing. We have all sorts of experience with politicians stonewalling and politicians coming clean. Clinton stonewalled on sex, and got away with it in the short term but his long-term reputation suffered. On the other hand, Reagan stonewalled on Iran-Contra and pretty much got away with it in both the short term and the long term. Gary Hart came clean and lost on all counts; Richard Nixon stonewalled and lost on all counts. I can't think of a good example of a politician coming clean, losing in the short term, and winning in the long term -- which speaks ill of my thesis. Nevertheless, I continue to believe that there is always a long term benefit to coming clean.


That in itself doesn't say much; it's not news. We're talking about long-term perceptions here. And such changes in perception can never be directly attributed to any single event.


This is an old argument, for which there is a standard response. The way to insure that the people get fair coverage is not to clamp down on some information in an effort to balance the coverage, but to simply let it all through. Let commies and criminals, fanatics and feeble-minded, democrats and republicans, everybody put out as much information as they want, and let the people shuffle through it and decide for themselves. You can never obtain fairness by censoring some information; your only hope is to let everything out.


True, but often the point of a photo is not so much the context as the emotion. Consider some of the history-making photos of the Vietnam war: the colonel executing the guerilla with a pistol to the head; the naked little girl running from the burning village screaming; the Kent State student bent over the prostrate body of a dead student, looking up at the camera, crying. None of these photos provided context. Was it wrong to publicize these pictures? Were they propaganda? Or were they just truth, plain and simple?


Who is the real audience for such photos? Young Islamic fanatics? Iraqi citizens? American citizens? Europeans? These photos function as propaganda only to the first group. Yes, releasing them will result in incrementally more terrorists, and incrementally more deaths of Americans. On the other hand, as I pointed out earlier, not releasing them could well result in even more deaths over the long run. Suppose, for example, that the release of the photographs creates such revulsion against the war here in America that American military forces leave Iraq, say, one week earlier than they otherwise would have left. How many casualties do we suffer every week? How many lives would be saved by pulling out one week earlier? These calculations are not one-sided, and they certainly aren't simple.

1. Does the repeated denial of this FOIA request about a well known scandal set a dangerous precedent allowing things like this to be covered up?
I don't see it as a precedent. The government often has tried to keep things confidential in the past for reasons of avoiding embarrassment. So IF that is the case here, it would be precedented.

2. Does the Bush Administration have a legitimate reason for for repeatedly denying this request or are they simply playing the damage control game? Please elaborate on your theory.

I wish I knew. I suspect they don't. The legitimate reason being posed is that the release of further photos could unleash a wave of new attacks against our troops. One could argue that not releasing the photos would do the same when future attackers assumed the worst.

Unfortunately without the information I have no way of knowing. I would like to know that a real investigation had access to these photos, one independent of the military at least. Perhaps this is already the case.

3. If you support the "any means necessary" approach in dealing with global terrorism, would seeing actual photos of the torture techniques used change your opinion of torture being a necessary evil to extract information?


I don't, so N/A

4. Do you agree or disagree with CCR's position that the United States should send a clear message that this type of thing is unacceptable and will not happen again by holding those responsible publicly accountable? Why or why not?

The withholding or the events in the detention centers? The government has already said that the acts and photos were unacceptable. It is my personal feeling that this has been more than the work of a few individuals going above and beyond their orders. Without full disclosure it is hard to know. Yet public release of the photos while soldiers remain in Iraq does pose real dangers for our troops. Hopefully the Bush administration is not hiding behind this fact and there is no proof in the photos of higher ups directing "softening up" of detainees by our soldiers or civilian contractors.

Mrs. Pigpen, have you seen the photos yourself or have you just read the articles on the subject? Whatever you like to call these photos, you can't deny that these are evidences of horrible crimes. As for myself, I prefer the truth be known by the public. I find this especially important when the country in question is claiming to improve human rights and bring democracy yet commits horrible crimes to their prisoners. As for myself, I have absolutely no trust in the US government to actually punish the people who did and ordered these crimes.

Here's the rub on all this about these photos.

1. Photo's get released because of pressure, and are spread around the world.

2. Old wounds from first series of photos are opened.

3. Insurgency and terrorists claim they will bring retribution for photos.

4. Violent attacks in Iraq and other areas where Al-Queda claims revenge for photos. More die.

5. Anti-war and anti-Bush crowd blame Bush for the new attacks and loss of human life.

If I knew that there would be no additional loss of life(soldier or civilian), from the release of these photos I would not have a problem with it. But to believe that would be the penultimate of nievity

That was exactly the point I was hoping to make..it is a balancing act. And I would say that the need is not only in regards to troop's safety but all person's safety. That is why I used the FACE act as an example of a very well accepted balance. Denying someone their rights to protest, assembly and speech is a very heavy measure on the govt's part..but we have chosen to recognize it's need because we feel safe passage and access to legally deemed medical procedures is more important. We feel this is a much wanted balance in our society.

There are many other examples of things like this that we for the most part fully accept and feel are needed...many victim's rights are based completely on the idea of censorship.

In regards to government information...there are just gobs and gobs of information that our government keeps classified ...claiming we need a open and transparent govt is a bit foolish of an argument to make to me. I don't even know half the time what location or project my husband is working at because it is a classified.

Besides as Mrs. P pointed out it is doubtful any of the photos show Bush or Rummy partaking in any of the prisoner abuse...because the real story is not in those photos. The real story and the true involvement in promoting abuse by the admin is not going to be found in these images.
I would rather we continue to demand full release and participation in the ongoing investigation.

Also members of the Congress have seen a collection of these photos. Do you not find them worthy of our representation? Could they not have viewed these on behalf of the American people?
I don't think these photos have been censored as much as many here portray them to have been.

As a result of these tortue investigations and I am sure the Congress being allowed to view these images thay have acted on behalf of the American people's revulsion with the McCain and Graham amendments.
The Bush admin is strongly against these amendments and has already threatned to veto the bill entirely because of them. I suppose the point I am making here is let's not waste our time with these pictures and remain focused on the big picture.

Yes, I have seen the photos, read a lot of articles and the report in its entirety. If you are as interested in the truth as you say you are, you should read the entire report, too. Then you can come to an educated conclusion as to whether our military endorses horrible crimes against its prisoners. I don't see how you could have ever read it and said what you did here. This report was written before any of the photos became public.

I agree that these are definitely crime scene pictures.

Judge Orders Release of Abu Ghraib Photos


Looks like this issue might not die quite as easily as some had hoped. I'm sure that an appeal will be filed but this is a step towards the release of the pictures.

I support a level of transparency in the actions of our government and military, but at what point do we put something up to the common sense test?
I have a question that I would like answered, preferably by Judge Hellerstein:
-aside from continuing the argument of transparency, what positive factor comes from releasing photos taken by the same soldiers as the earlier released photos, and by most accounts, contain nothing new in the way of evidence to prosecute?

I see by way of the internet that Democrats are popping the champagne corks over the prospect of adding more ammunition to the 2006 election cycle, though it certainly wasn't a fait accompli in 2004.

I was embarrassed by the actions of my fellow soldiers at Abu Ghraib, and think democracy was served by the whistle blowing, but I'm at a loss to figure out what realistic reason, besides political, there is to release yet more photos. What American doesn't know about the abuses at Abu Ghraib? What more can be said about the incident? We all know the photographs exist, there's no coverup at play, are we satisfying some morbid curiosity, or is the ACLU supporting a political agenda?


I don't completely buy into the line that the release will assuredly cause more US casualties, but we are dealing with a populace that murdered several of their own countrymen over a false report of a koran flushed down a toilet.......so why are we running that risk for no apparent gain?

I'm torn on this issue, but favor releasing photos. And as usual, it's because of Bush's incompetence in dealing with almost any issue.

I think the Geneva Convention argument is bogus simply because it's clear the enemies we've made will not follow them. They do not wear uniforms, they hide within the civilian population, and do not take prisoners - they just behead them (or release them when we've ponied up enough cash).

Moreover, I have no problem extracting information from the enemy that could cost innocent lives. I think this argument is a good one, but flawed. It assumes every prisoner is an insurgent and I'm not convinced that is the case.

In any case, I don't lose much sleep over the prisoners held at Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, etc.

But here's the problem I have with the treatment. First, you can't defeat Muslim extremists through Vietnam era military tactics. That simply becomes a huge whack-a-mole effort destined for failure. The only way we can minimize their impact is to have the countries they live in clean up their own backyard (my #1 reason for NOT going to Iraq - Saddam did not export terrorism). To get these countries to help, we need to show strength and leadership. We've failed on all counts there and the Abu Ghraib photos only make those efforts go backward. Furthermore, most of that behavior is flat out wrong only because we're supposed to be the civilized ones here.

Most Palestinians hate Jews because that's what they've been indoctrinated with. They have no real clue why they're supposed to hate Jews, but they'll gladly give up their lives to destroy them. When Israel retaliates and innocents get killed, that collateral damage becomes the fuel for more hatred - right or wrong. And these photos accomplish the same thing with extremists. For that, the photos are harmful and does not advance our cause.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration did not accept responsibility. They called these isolated incidents, for which anybody with 3 brain cells to rub together could see they were not, and jailing the lowest common denominator in the military food chain. Anybody who questioned this got thrown in the Rovepile along with the people who publicly have disagreed with the administration who turned out to be correct (Wilson, O'neill, Clarke, et al). Now we have Captain Ian Fishback sequestered at Fort Bragg under orders restricting his contacts (they say he is a key witness in a criminal investigation and that he should not be in contact with outsiders while it continues) corroborating what General Karpinski has been saying - this was an operation tactic - not isolated incidents.

We can't allow this type of stuff to happen. Period. We're supposed to be the good guys or we're no better than Saddam invading Kuwait. But nobody's been held accountable. The premise that releasing the photos will cause additional deaths is folly because you'd have to believe the enemy is actually holding back. That's ridiculous.

Since Bush won't get this fixed and hold people accountable, release everything. Let the world know how screwed up we are because failing to do so will only let this problem fester. Lance the boil.

Really? Would you want these pictures to be released if your son or daughter's boots were on the ground anywhere in the Middle East?



I fail to see how this will lead to "more accountability". The Congresspeople have seen them, the investigation was complete before they were made public. How would/could this hurt Bush in any way? Now that expectation is ridiculous.

The possible risk of inflaming the hatred of individuals already predisposed to hate Americans seems minimal at best. What is at risk is this nation's moral authority as merciful and just and one that does not brutalize its enemies.

Besides this isn't war doesn't just belong to George Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Don Rumsfeld and the rest of the warhawks/chickenhawks that wanted this fight so badly. It belongs to ALL of the American people and frankly I want to see every last stinking picture from Abu Gharib.

Let's watch the unwatchable. Let's see what kind of foulness is being perpertrated in our name.

It's our war. It's our money. We paid for this war. Let's see what kind of deals with the devil our leaders have made in our name.

If my son treated people like that, I'd have no problem with releasing these photos if he were in them. I don't hold myself to a different standard. I taught him right from wrong so he knows what it is. Further, if he were ordered to do so, I would be even more enraged at the situation.

I never said anything about Bush getting hurt. He's done a nice job of that himself without any photos. My point is to not let this type of thing to happen again. This "investigation" found nobody with any authority responsible. So, what are the people that ordered this afraid of? Nothing. And you suggest that shouldn't change. I respectfully disagree. If severe actions were taken the first time around, I would fully concur with your point of view. Releasing additional photos would only prevent old wounds from being healed. But the entire world has watched us invade and occupy a soverign nation, rape, murder, and torture them, and not punish anybody. That view has not changed and it needs to at any cost. That's my point. The latest round of photos could be our mulligan where we can get this problem fixed.

I didn't say "what would you think if your son was a criminal?", I asked you what you would think if your son's boots were on the ground anywhere in the Middle East. The people who are in the pictures are safe as they are in jail and not in Iraq. Do you believe that people like Mustang and DTOM's wife have been ordered to beat and rape people? If you read the report you might have some idea that this isn't the case.

Because then the world would see honesty.

What we're seeing now (if I may presume to speak on behalf of the rest of the planet) is duplicity and hypocrisy.

Dayton Rocker is right. Lance the boil. Get it over with. The terrorists will try to use this as propaganda, but they are like as not already doing this, and frankly, I don't believe the release of these photo's will make any difference to the already tarnished and battered image of America under GW Bush that the world already see's.

On a personal note, I would say that the photo's and pictures should at least be released to an independent, possibly Iraqi, panel of judges to decide as to whether or not the people responsible have all been punished.

I do not think the general public has a right or a need to see these pictures, not really. The knowledge that they exist, the already released photographs and the understanding of their implications along with how the Bush administration acted is more than enough knowledge.

I don't see how my answer is inconsistent no matter how I answered your question. You seem to be implying that I waive my support for the troops by asking for accountability for prisoner abuse.

Obviously, 99% of our troops do the right thing. But orders come from the 1% at the top. These people have not been held accountable. Is Bush accountable himself? No...he doesn't order torture (at least I hope not). But these people work for him and it's his job to make sure they do their job correctly. Clearly, they have not and he's done nothing about it.

My counter-point to your question is this: If Bush had done his job correctly, would Mustang and DTOM's wife even be in harm's way? I think not. Ignoring prisoner abuse, which for all we know still goes on, will not get anybody home sooner. It will only cause more passive Muslims to turn into extreme fundamentalists and make our withdraw time period further away. How does that help our loved ones in harms way? Wouldn't keeping them there longer be worse?

Let me ask a rhetorical question, Mrs. P. Do you believe that Abu Ghraib would have been addressed had those photos never existed, much less never been released? Congress, it seems of late, has a populist bent. That is, they seem to exercise little leadership without public input. The photos served to motivate the public to get Congress to do its job. Photos will always be more effective than reports for this. The photos viscerally demonstrated that something was (and perhaps still is) terribly wrong with US treatment of prisoners. It's a (somewhat unjustified) black eye for the US military and the US in general. But, the best way to deal with these things is to face them head-on, to show that we can accept these acts and not appear to be hiding from them. Free the photos! So, we can move along...