Today new photos depicting some of the horrors that went on at the Abu Ghraib prison were supposed to be released. You can find a good write up at the CCR web site.


Questions for debate:
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?

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.

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?

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?

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?

What is there to cover up? We all know what happened. Hell the New York Times ran about 48 front-page stories on the issue. This is old news and nothing good comes from releasing additional photos unless you are on the left beause its the perfect opportunity to bring a sore issue back into the mainstream media stories.

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.

Again...what good does releasing these photos do? The issue is old. People involved have been charged and some are still going through their due process. Do the police release photos of a crime scene to the public? The answer is no because the defendant has rights and one of those rights is an unbiased jury.

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 never support the use of torture. However our definition of what torture actually is, differs. What happened at Abu Ghraib was bad...and it should not have happened. But ill bite anyway...how about we put the photos of Abu Ghraib right next to the photos of innocents like Nick Berg being beheaded or where bodies of Iraqi children were blown to bits after a terrorist crashed his van into the crowd? Lets put both right next to eachother. Then we can all decide objectively.

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?

Of course i agree that the US should send such a message. It is NOT acceptable behavior. But how is releasing new photos of an old incident going to have any affect other than more anti-american feelings aimed at the United States? The people invovled are being/have been charged and reprimanded. The US has to send that message because it is in our best interest to do so. It is NOT in our interest to cause more anti-americanism and upset more people.

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? There are, and have always been FOIA exemptions. I think a case can be made here for EXEMPTION 7(F).

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 don't believe anything good will come out of showing more photos....which I expect are more of what we've already seen. It seems more of a way to keep the anger alive, which is likely the objective. I don't think the Bush administration has much to lose on this, since it is old information. The soldiers out in the field might incur more danger, however.

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? Not applicable, though I don't know why that would change my views if I favored torture. I think you're expecting these new photos to offer something extraordinary. We already are privy to the charges (and reports) made in these cases, I don't think these photos are going to show anything new or surprising.

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? I think they should send a clear message that this type of thing is unacceptable and will not happen again. I believe they have sent this message, and are holding those responsible publicly accountable. I'm not sure what that has to do with showing these photos.

That is where you are wrong Mrs. P - the new photos do offer something new and surprising. The following is a Boston Herald article from 2004, stored on this site.


If you'll recall the pictures released only showed humiliating acts and the spin from right wing pundits of all stripes downplayed the severity of these crimes. Therefore, it is likely that a decent percentage of Americans really don't know the severity of these crimes. Sometimes the only way to change a person's views is to confront them with the ugly truth.

I haven't formed an opinion one way or the other on this yet, I just thought it was interesting news worthy of discussing so please do not draw conclusions about my position based on the fact that I started the topic.


How do you figure a case could be made for 7(F) when the government will be "redact[ing] the faces of the men, women and children believed to be shown in the photographs and videos"? If no one knows who they are then how is this information going to put them in danger?

The government is correct in asserting that the release of photos of prisoners violates the Geneva convention. Secondly, and more importantly, the release of the photos will provide propaganda to the enemy, which will eventually lead to the deaths of more Americans, both on US soil and abroad. Just what we ought to do provide a recruitment tool for our enemies.

Yea sure let's release them to the world. If they incite more violence... GREAT now we can make Bush look really bad even if it means more innocent people or soldiers die.

What do you expect to happen if we do release more pictures and video from Abu Ghraib?

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?

Yes.


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.

No. They are trying to prevent the course of justice because they fear the truth will reveal the true extent to which US soldiers went in Abu Graib and this will destroy the 'few bad apples' explanation that was offered to the Muslim world.


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 support the "any means necessary" approach.


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?

Yes. Failure to allow the law to act against people who have committed a crime makes you an accessory to the crime. The fact that those people were wearing a uniform of the US military makes no difference to that, what so ever.

My greatest concern here is that people who are guilty of crimes are being protected because they've made the USA look bad.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Unless you've seen the material in question, how do you know that the people involved have been charged?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How do you know it will not happen again?

And how do you know that those responsible have been held accountable?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


First: Do you really think that the terrorists need such photo's to kill Americans? That the damage done is not already so overwhelming that allowing these photographs to be used in criminal proceedings is going to make any difference at all?

Second: Not publishing these photographs to be used in a court of law is what violates the Geneva convention since by not publishing the images the US government is protecting people who have committed crimes against prisoners.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nothing that isn't going to happen any way.

As for making Bush look bad, he is already the most disliked politician in the world, widely regarded as a murderer who ought to be charged on human rights violations and a war monger who should be tried in the Hague. He has made himself look bad, and the soldiers under his command who chose to rape, torture and murder helped him along.

By NOT releasing these images so those responsible can be held to account, Bush is making himself, and as a consequence, the entire USA look far worse than he ever otherwise would.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Its truly amazing how loyalty to a mere uniform can eclipse loyalty to the law.

I suppose there is some justification in the intent to attempt to spare the lives of US soldiers who might die in revenge attacks, but as Tony Blair has said in recent days, these people are attacking us regardless of the justifications they use. If its not one particular reason, then they can very quickly find another. They will attack regardless.

By withholding this evidence of crimes committed, the US government is not protecting US soldiers. It is in fact endangering them.

In other words, let's hide the truth, because people aren't actually responsible for their own actions. And of course, the rabid left hates Bush so much we don't care if more soldiers die - because heck, we hate America! Please.

Let's imagine for a moment that the entire situation was reversed. Americans, both soldiers and civilians, are being held in Iraqi prisons. Would you still argue that we should suppress the truth? That it might make us mad and want to kill more Iraqis? It seems doubtful.

The truth is important, whether it aids or hinders us in life. If we are worried about how these despicable acts might be taken, perhaps we should work on cleaning up our act rather than suppressing the truth from the people.

It is the supporters of this illegal and immoral war who made this bed. So sad that they must now sleep in it. And I mean that - it really is sad. When we hear of these things, our first reaction as human beings ought to be that this is so despicable, it deserves complete exposure and investigation - in a democratic republic, we the people must be told and shown the truth - but instead, supporters of the Hegemon are expressing as their first reactions, that this is a political game, in which those of us calling for exposure are trying as hard as we can to destroy America. Anything to harm Bush? No, Sleeper. Anything to have the truth out there for all to see. If the truth harms your cause, perhaps you ought to be questioning the cause - not crying foul when human lives are at stake.

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?

Yes. We already know that the GOP is not fond of the FOIA. Apparently if Americans had real transparency in government, nobody would vote Republican. Well, there must be some reason!

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.


It's damage control. The war has become less and less popular. Its false causes are becoming more widely exposed. The President's approval ratings continue to drop. Rather than Sleeper's interesting take on the so-called 'Bush-haters,' the opposite is in fact more likely to be true - that Bush and Co. are so worried about how Americans are learning the lie of the war, they are willing to suppress the truth about rape and torture, just to protect their image.

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?

That sentiment was as wrong when Malcom X said it (and even he later moved away from that position), and it's wrong now. As soon as we decide that any end is more important than the means with which we achieve it, we become no better than animals. Torturing people in the name of freedom, or in the name of autocracy, it's the same.

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?

I very much agree. To stonewall on this is just more wood for the by-now raging bonfire of lies and betrayal foisted on the American people by this minority of Empire-builders who love being the 800 pound gorilla.

I was under the impression that our soldiers are people too.



You aren't comparing apples to apples. Ask Nick Berg. The response above almost indicates you are in denial of reality. I am hard pressed to remember public disclosure (from the perpetrators) of American POWs being abused in Christmases past. Think that would have helped anyone? Well...it did help the war effort when Saddam set our obviously abused POWs to speak on camera. I remember some idiots suggesting back then that we should nuke Iraq.

These are crime scene photos, and the personal cameras were forbidden in the first place. The offenders were violating the law, and these photos will serve as propaganda fodder for excuses to kill us. Lives will likely be lost...and we know this because it happened before. I don't know of any country in the history of the world that proliferates propaganda against itself during wartime. If we do that, we deserve a Darwin award.

But you are not at war.

This continued reference to being at war is disingenuous, if indeed it is not an outright lie.
It has been repeated so many times that its become accepted as truth but the truth is that the USA is nation founded on laws and without a formal declaration of war issued by your congress, then you are not 'at war'.

That GW Bush, his government and those Americans who support him continue to refer to this military campaign as a 'war', and as a method of excusing such behaviour as this topic refers to, then they must answer as to why no declaration of war has been issued, and why they refer to this campaign as a war without such a declaration.

Are we really to believe that the USA has devolved so much that simply the virtue of men shooting at each other makes for a war? What sort of medieval attitude is this?
What is the point of having laws if they are so easily bypassed that thousands can be sent out to die on the basis of a sound byte? For that is what the 'war' on terror really is. A speech makers sound byte penned to stir up the indignation and patriotic fervour that has allowed such crimes as were committed at Abu Graib to be carried out, and now covered up.

It is a disgrace the scale of which I have never seen before in my life time. The United States has become a danger to the rest of the western world and the only reason for it is a biased, selfish and introspective anger that denies any responsibility for what has taken place in your name.

There is no 'war' on terror any more than there is a 'war' against the weather.

These photographs are evidence of crimes committed. Failure to allow justice to be carried out is complicity. Thus the government of the USA has become a willing helper in the torture, rape and murder of prisoners at Abu Graib just as surely as if the President of the United States was present in the room and holding down the prisoners.

That your soldiers are people too does not grant them immunity from the law.

Well, then, there was no Korean war, Vietnam war, Kosovo war, or first Gulf war.

My take on this is lives are more important than publically disclosing photos of criminal acts....whether this is a war or not is irrelevant to that point. There is enough strife in Iraq as is without adding this fuel to the fire to satisfy public curiosity.

That a lie is told many times doesn't make it any more true.

When GW Bush says 'we are at war', he is lying. You are not at war. You are engaged in military action, yes, but that does not make for a war lest all military action only exists within a state of war.

Being on a war footing, without a decleration of war, means the USA is always in a state of war.


...to satisfy public curiousity?

The public has the right to know what crimes have been commited in their name and no government has the right to cover up a crime, especially not one which will rightly reflect badly on its own policies and actions, for lets be honest here. The public is not the problem in this context, nor is any concern for the troops the reason behind this continued refusal to release this evidence.

The troops are being, and will be attacked regardless simply by virtue of their presence in Iraq. And as I pointed out earlier quoting Tony Blair, they are going to attack us/you/the troops and it doesn't matter which reason they use. Whether its new photographs from Abu Graib or just the same old message of Holy War it doesn't matter.

Retaining these photo's won't protect any one except the criminals implicated by them.

I wonder who else we will see in the pictures, if they ever see the light of day, other than the ‘few bad apples’ that had to bear the brunt of the Administrations attempts at backing away for the Memo’s it wrote justifying torture?


There are certain actions we know to be Evil; torture is one of those. There is no justification for it, and it has been said by experts that modern techniques do not need to resort to primitive methods to extract information.

I think that those who support it are in it more for “revenge” than to get any actionable intelligence. As some of the FBI Documents that were released say; there was no Useful Intelligence gained by the torture performed at Gitmo.


http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/FBI_3977.pdf

1st Paragraph: The FBI knew about the Torture; but not that the Interrogators were impersonating FBI Agents.
2nd Paragraph: Interrogators posing as FBI Agents
3rd Paragraph: These Tactics have produced NO Intelligence.
4th Paragraph: Uses the word Torture


http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/FBI_3977.pdf
4th paragraph: These tactics have produces no intelligence of a threat neutralization to date and CITF believes that techniques have destroyed any chance of prosecuting this detainee.

If these photos were new, I would support their release as it would provide arguement that little has changed at Abu Ghraib since the original scandal. However, this is not the case.

If I thought any good would come from releasing the photos, I would support it. I fail to see any positive to be gained from it. The "truth" would only serve to rip the large bandaid off of a slowly healing wound.

Besides, our government has proven quite adept at appearing blameless in the original scandal, I don't see how more disturbing photos would push this issue across the bright line of accountability.


I see, so photographs of our soldiers violating an accord that we have specifically said doesn't apply to those prisoners would in fact violate the accord we choose to ignore? Could the government possibly be more disingenuous here?

I don't follow you Mrs P - when I read this section of the article I was under the impression this would be the faces of everyone including the American soldiers responsible.

Unless you are referring to soldiers which are not involved, then I'm not really sure I understand your point. If you are then I disagree but seeing how neither one of us can provide any sort of evidence to support our position since it is a hypothetical situation I'm not particularly interested in discussing it.

1. Heck yes. There are too many people (like some of the posters in this thread) that would rather shut their eyes and act like all is well instead of open them and see what is being done supposedly on our behalf. I'm as sick of Abu Gharib as anyone else, but I'm not an idiot like Bill O' Reilly who thinks these photographs hurt the war effort. It is a ridiculous assumption to charge the release of the photos will place our troops in harm's way. They've BEEN in harm's way since the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the other neo-cons found a President craven enough to go along with their fantasies of conquering Iraq and turning it into the 51st state.

Sometimes you have to watch the unwatchable. Putting your head in the sand is not a reasonable alternative.

2. That depends on what you think the motivations of this Adminstration is. I think they want to maintain the ability to play "the torture card."

The Bush administration in recent days has been lobbying to block legislation supported by Republican senators that would bar the U.S. military from engaging in "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of detainees, from hiding prisoners from the Red Cross, and from using interrogation methods not authorized by a new Army field manual. (emphasis added)

Vice President Cheney met Thursday evening with three senior Republican members of the Senate Armed Services Committee to press the administration's case that legislation on these matters would usurp the president's authority and -- in the words of a White House official -- interfere with his ability "to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack."

It was the second time that Cheney has met with Senate members to tamp down what the White House views as an incipient Republican rebellion. The lawmakers have publicly expressed frustration about what they consider to be the administration's failure to hold any senior military officials responsible for notorious detainee abuse in Iraq and the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The White House, in a further indication of its strong feelings, bluntly warned in a statement sent to Capitol Hill on Thursday that President Bush's advisers would urge him to veto the $442 billion defense bill "if legislation is presented that would restrict the President's authority to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack and bring terrorists to justice."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...nents?nav=slate

The White House wants a blank check to "fight terrorism" in any way they see fit and they want NO QUESTIONS ASKED about how they do it. Apparently, that's just fine with some folks who aren't concerned how the means may not justify the ends.

4. Unless we're talking about the "ticking time bomb" theory to justify torture OR we're prepared to go on the record and say the United States does not rule out the usage of physical, mental, and psychological coercion to obtain information or control detainees, there is NO justification for the illegal and immoral treatment of prisoners.

We do not defeat our enemies by becoming like them. We do not win the battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people by torturing them.

From www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk a bio of Byron Price



Would it not be nice if our press could be trusted today to voluntarily withhold publicizing info that would aid and abet the enemy? When bullets are being fired at you I am sure it does not matter if you are at war or just engaged in a conflict. Semantics probably don't matter much at that point.

If any administration blocks pictures from being shown to the American public, that is censorship. We have freedom of the press, and they should not be controlled by the government or corporations, it should be controlled by the American people.


http://theanteater.blogspot.com

So let me get this straight, a libertarian is advocating censorship of the press by an "Office of Censorship"?

Our enemies need no further reasons to attack us than what they already have and I highly doubt that more information would help their cause, so unless you have something more than conjecture to add please stop trying to equate this to treason or aiding and abeding the enemy.

I think that we as Americans do have an obligation to show to the world that we are above these practices by facing them, admitting to them and vowing that they will never happen again. If you expect to claim the high ground in an argument or conflict you have to live up to it. The Bush administration has done none of this. The initial pictures were followed by denials and minimalization from the white house - just a few bad apples acting alone they have said.

I can sort of understand (although I don't agree with it) not going on record as being against this and promising it won't happen again, but the story cited by Nighttimer above proves they have no intention of removing this tool from their arsenal. I'll quote his source again for emphasis:


To me that doesn't sound like an administration that has learned the lesson from Abu Ghraib or an administration that has made a commitment to never let this happen again. Actions speak louder than words.

Edited to add: I just saw this article on yahoo which describes the purpose of bill Nighttimer referred to above.

No, we certainly want anyone investigating guantanamo bay or elsewhere, that certainly wouldn't be good for the administration... we can't have that.

The key word was voluntarily. Since this won't happen the administration needs to do everything it can to prevent them photos getting out. The end result of those photos in our enemies hands is deaths of more Americans. There are reasons sometimes photos are not allowed in court. There is no need to publish these photos. You need to put your partisanship aside and realize more dead Americans ain't a good thing.

How many American lives is the left willing to give up in order to get control of Congress or the White House? A thousand? Ten thousand? One-hundred thou.....

Partisanship? I could care less about whether this damages Bush's already low approval rating Hugo. What I do care about is the continued use of these tactics by our country (regardless of who is in power). If you'd kindly read the rest of my post and nighttimer's last post you'd see what I'm talking about.

The desire to ensure that our country is not torturing people shouldn't be a partisan value, it should be an American value.

The American value should be to protect the lives and liberties of Americans, not terrorists. It is time we fight this war, not the last one. The rules imposed by the Geneva convention may well have been worth obeying in a conventional war against another nation state. These same rules simply tie our hands in the war against terrorism. To publish the photos would be to supply propaganda to our enemies. To not utilize techniques to obtain as much information as possible from terrorists is to allow more Americans to die. Hard to have liberty and pursue happiness when you are dead. I guess as long as more dead Americans mean lower ratings for Bush the deaths of more Americans should be encouraged.

Just to clarify, yes, I mean soldiers not involved. I mean people like DTOM's wife, Overlandsailor, Mustang, ect, who are out in Iraq at this moment faced with trying to keep order and stay alive. Good people who not only haven't committed any crimes, they have worked and endangered their own lives to install order and pick up the pieces out there. I also mean the Iraqi citizens who are being victimized and always seem to incur 50 casualities for every US soldier these bombers are supposedly trying to target. FAR from hypothetical, propaganda is a tool which can be (and is) used to incite violence. These photos will supply it, so I can think of no sound reason our government should release OLD photos which will unquestionably be used to suit this purpose.

If another government were treating our soldiers the way we are, would the Bush Administration stop the same groups from getting that information out? If the abuses were simply incidental and that has been resolved via throwing flunkys in jail, what is there to hide?

So, I'm scratching my head wondering what the deal really is with blocking the pictures/videos, and it's clearly the administration serving the BushBots a heaping helping of obfuscation to make a ridiculous point.

The administration has gotten the apologists to believe that the abuses were rare and the result of a few bad apples. Quite miraclulously, we have video of it. And with the abundance of abuse evidence, a person would have to concede it's all of it or abuse just wouldn't be that rare (catch-22).

A far more plausible reason is that all these vidoes and pictures show that the abuses were systematic and the videos are just examples of what went on. In other words, the abuse was/is common and we have evidence of only a part of it.

If this is the last of the evidence showing abuse, what's to hide? Or is this tactic designed to stop not this round of evidence, but others we don't know about yet?

Releasing the videos would only serve as a reminder of how incompetent this "war" has been fought, so they should be released in the interest of public service. The idea of soldiers in Iraq getting blown to little pieces everyday being in more danger because of these abuses is absurd. I think the danger level is about as high as it can be with or without our torture practices.

Another reason to release the Photo’s is to shut the Wingers up.

How many times have we had to hear that “Panties on the head” is not torture. They use the most minor occurrence to try and deny the truth. Let it all out and then let’s see who still supports this kind of activity.

And if Bush feels that the release of the Photo’s would endanger the Troops; he should have thought about that before he had Gonzales ask Justice for some Legal Advice on how to circumvent Article 5 of the Geneva Conventions; which by the way do say that those at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo are covered regardless of what some on the Right claim.

So he’s going to veto the $442 billion before he signs it?

Didn’t he do that with the 87 billion for Iraq; and then blamed the other guy for Flop-Flipping?


If we need to torture people to keep us safe; then the terrorists have won. It’s only the players that have changed.

Nice attempt at trying to spin it to put the blame on "the left," Hugo, but if memory serves, it was a right-wing chickenhawk son-of-a-Bush that sent 1,774 American soldiers to their deaths. Despite your shrill and unsubstianted claims that "the end result of those photos in our enemies hands is deaths of more Americans" the insurgents don't need any more reason to hate and kill our troops. The fact that we are there in Iraq is reason enough for the insurgents.

And George W. Bush put them there. NOBODY ELSE.

I'll give your spurious questions right back atcha, Hugo. How many American lives is the Right willing to give up to maintain control of Congress or the White House? It's already over a thousand. Shall we go for two thousand? Ten thousand? One hundred thousand?

The war in Iraq is about to reach the 300 Billion dollars. What it has cost in destroyed and shattered lives is incalculable. At what point are those who blindly support this miserable war going to stop ignoring reality in Iraq?

I hate it when they say, ‘He gave his life for his country.’ They don’t die for the honor and glory of their country. We kill them.

~Rear Admiral Gene R. LaRocque

There is a new ripple to this story, check out this article at Yahoo! News. 2,000 Veterans are calling for an independent investigation here.

For the record, this "nonpartisan" group was against the Iraq War and their website reads like a standard anti-war anti-bush site. They even link to articles about the Plame incident to remove all doubt.

Well, I don't support the war in Iraq. However, now that we'll in it I don't advocate an immediate withdrawal. I'm basically a Buchananite when it comes to military intervention. Having said that, two wrongs do not make a right. Releasing those photos will aid in the recruitment of Islamic fascists not just in Iraq, but throughout the world. Many of the fascists potential recruits can't read, but they can look at photos. Don't think those photos won't be utilized everywhere radical Islam is at (which is pretty much everywhere). The neocon agenda is dead. There will be no neocon succeeding Bush. Release of those photos will only result in more deaths of both Americans, and, as MrsP has pointed out, innocent Muslims. The adfministration should use every legal means to stop. or delay, the release of the photos.

3000 people died at the twin towers before the war on Iraq. Before any of Bush's so-called atrocities.

I just noticed something that makes me want to add a bit more to this thread. Like Hugo, I was never in favor of this war. I originally joined this discussion forum because a become politically more active during times of military engagement. Back during the Kosovo and Bosnia conflicts long ago, I joined a different forum...I was anti-war then as well. I have no fond feelings for the Bush administration either. Though I have opposed the war from the beginning, I always call it when I hear something I believe is ridiculous or wrong. And, like Hugo, I don't think it would be prudent to abandon Iraq now. I wouldn't have been in favor of the abandonment of Bosnia or Kosovo after the cease of "major combat operations" either. In fact, if we (the West) had abandoned those areas right after the conflict, I think they would be in exponentially worse shape now.

Back to the pictures. I think a bit of context is appropriate here. Where did the pictures come from in the first place? They were used as evidence for an Article 32 Court Martial hearing, after they were turned in by an MP (Darby), to his superior officer. By the time the pictures we've seen became public, General Karpinski had been formally admonished and suspended, and a major investigation into the Army’s prison system (authorized by Lieutenant General Ricardo S. Sanchez), had been finalized with a fifty-three-page report, written by Major General Antonio M. Taguba. This report, along with the pictures, were leaked to the public (Seymour Hersh being the first) via the military legal process. If there were de-facto approval of this behavior, these photos would have never seen the light of day, and the Taguba report (which so many who seem to cite often obviously have never read) would not exist.

I believe the abuses took place due to severe undermanning, undertraining, and poor leadership, not because of tacit approval of the abuse. The Taguba report describes what happened in great detail, so anyone who is curious can read it themselves. I'm not sure what points were caught on video or camera, but I don't see reason to suspect that the photos which were used to launch the 53 page report would encompass behavior not included in the report.

I think there is some misplaced anger here.

Edited to add:PDF Link to Taguba report.

I don't believe that the photos should be released. A major part of this war is "winning hearts and minds" something I think the Bush Adminstration should've tried to do prior to invasion. However, what's done is done and it seems like now we're trying to win hearts and minds and releasing more photos will be a step in the wrong direction.

That being said, I think those who want to deny these photos being released are ignoring what kind of precedent might be set by this. I don't want any more photos released because the benefit (American's know more about what happened in Abu Grahib) is less than the possibility of more uprisings and death. I do believe that the original photos should have been released to the public because the Amerian people have a right to know what's going on. Nothing good comes from cover ups and you'd think politicians would've catched on to this by now.

I think this administration needs to come down hard on senior brass and have them make sure stuff like this doesn't happen anymore. But if it does (meaning another, separate incident) I feel the American people should know and the military will have to suffer the consequences for not coming down hard enough.


ps: It may seem like I'm flip-flopping on my position but I'm really not. Hopefully I've explained it well enough.

From what I have read the release of these photos and video would cause international scandal and I conclude many more American deaths and possibly losing the last shred of credibility in the Iraq war.

Although I would like nothing more than for this admin to be brought to its knees by this kind of corruption and double standards and I do not agree with those who say this was just a few kids 'having fun', as Ive read it was a strategy gone bad and an ensuing cover up, I cannot see any government in their right mind releasing this kind of inflamatory material to the public, much less in wartime. It would surely end any support we have in Iraq at the moment, instantly.





http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1449267/posts

An article on the Pentagons torture strategy from the New Yorker which they label FACT: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact

I do in fact belief that this precedent was set many, many years ago. Governments operate for the good of the people, if it means to lie to them: so be it. Case and point: Roswell, New Mexico.

Now I don't find myself easily roped into believing in aliens, but a weather balloon? Couldn't the government come up with a better lie?! Where are my tax dollars going, my goodness, unimaginative prats.




There is no legitimate reason behind denying the truth, however ugly it may be. The administration has made its bed, if it was not prepared to sleep in it, it should have folded the creases out of the sheets.

People are normally more appalled at the fact they are not given the truth. When given the truth progress can be made to make sure it does not happen again. But when the truth is slid under the rug it becomes blurred and the very existence questioned. We need to know the truth and we need it now.




If the government is so interested in gathering information I would personally fund every vial of sodium pentathol they ever need. Torture is a method by which lesser-minds prevail- people have been proven to give misinformation and tell lies when subject to torture, simply to make it end. Torture at an American-run instillation would be abominable, it would be ethically wrong. Under no circumstances is there a necessary evil that tenders lies and physical abuse.




The individuals responsible are of little consequence. If they are government employees and under the might and protection of the government then the government is at fault. The captain is responsible for the actions of his crew.

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?

Yes it does. Too much that this administration does is done in the shadows. I'm tired of the lack of transparency and accountability.

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.

Other than damage control? NO. They passed off the abuse of prisoners as "isolated incidents" which I believe these photo's would contradict. I also think they don't want American's to see what is done in THEIR NAME.

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'm not a supporter of "by any means necessary". If you become everything you're fighting against than exactly what are you fighting for? I expect better from America than to act in a manner more befitting the tactics of our enemies. For those who do support "by any means necessary" I believe they ought to SEE exactly what that means. If they lack the stomach to even view what they support, than they ought not support it at all.

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?

I do agree but as is always the case, it's the underlings that are made the scapegoats. I personally believe these acts of abuse were sanctioned at the upper levels of our government (why were Government attorneys looking for loopholes in what constitutes torture) if they weren't looking for ways to do that very thing?

The above question limits this to a “Scandal” when in fact the Administration is in violation of the ‘War Crimes Act of 1996’ and has ignored the Geneva Conventions by making up non-existent definitions for detainees. That is a lot more serious than a “Scandal.”

There are NO Legitimate reasons to protect those who facilitated torture at the highest levels.

If you support any means necessary; you are a terrorist.

When it comes to this type of activity; there is no ‘not holding them accountable’; that is unless you support terrorist activity yourself.

I cannot quite understand why anyone would want the public release of pictures of people getting raped and killed because they believe that it is somehow connected to the Bush administration. Politics seems to take priority over human lives and common decency. How will releasing these pictures publicy somehow "reveal the truth"? Apparently the information that these prisoners were raped and tortured has allready been released, yet you want to see pictures of it?

Of course the Bush adminstration is at fault here, after all it's guilty until proven innocent...

The photographs are a form of truth. Yes, describing their content does provide a fraction of the information in the photographs, but only a fraction. Refusing to release the documents is inconsistent with the transparency that is part of a healthy democracy.


Well, if the Bush administration is innocent, then I would expect them to be eager to release all information as a demonstration of its innocence. Only the guilty hide in shadows. The innocent are happy to have the truth be known.

Look, this is a purely political argument. The photographs are a huge embarrassment to the Bush administration. They refuse to release the photographs on purely political grounds. Likewise, his opponents want them released on purely political grounds. But the deciding issue here is not political grounds, but the fundamental priniciple of transparency in government. If somebody wants to have the documentation on federal payments for gopher elimination in Podunk County, MiddleState, then they should have it, regardless of the political implications. The politics should not enter into the decision to release the information. We should do things by the book, and the book in this case says that the government should release anything that does not compromise national security. (Actually, what the book says is considerably more complicated than that, but that's the gist of it for the purposes of this debate.)

Yes, what the book says is more complicated than that. The book says that the government need not release documents if there is a good chance that they will compromise individual (or group) security, which is surely the case here. I don't give a hill of beans for the politics involved, I don't wish to endanger our troops for no purpose except (yes, I'll say it again, public curiosity), when they are in a hostile environment. Anyone interested in what went on can read the report. I did.



How ridiculous. Think you are going to see Bush's maniacal mug in these photos? This line even falls flat on arguments you have made on other issues. Don't have anything to hide? Why should you fear infringement of privacy? Long live the patriot act! We have nothing to hide....only the guilty would object.

O.K. Let's put it all on the table! Let us see more Abu Ghraib photos! Oh, and while you are at it, let us also see photos of the hundreds and thousands of young Iraqui police recruits who have stood up and volunteered to serve and protect their fledgling democracy. Let's see some graphic close-up photos of their blown up bodies and various parts....shreded to oblivion by the disgruntled "insurgents" (or "justified freedom fighters") as some may call them.

As a libertarian who loathes both major parties, I am sickened that there are a significant number of my countrymen who intentionally pretend to not understand the difference between doing anything that happened at Abu Ghraib vs. chopping off someone's head with a dull machete.

The disgusting irony is that the same folks who are so exercized about the influnce of the (Christian religion) in America, seem to bend over backwards to embrace the (religions) of Islam. Patriarchal Christianity (modern) oppresses women. But nevermind the current Patriarchal nature of Islam. They demand that we use "diplomacy" and accept their "ways"...It's Multicultural! The same american women who demand their right to kill the offspring of their american male oppressors demand peace and understanding and diplomacy towards the religious dark-skinned men who oppress their women on the other side of the globe. "Cover up from head to toe. No real job for you. Do not talk back!"

Can you imagine how modern american women would react to such treatment? You take identical behavior....If the male is modern and light skinned, he is evil and shallow corporate pig.! If he is dark-skinned and non-american, he is culturally and spiritually "different". He needs to be "understood" and respected.

Edited to add..."What a sick joke!!!!"

I demand no such sensitivity for Muslim country personally- all I care about is accountability from my goverment. I pretty much disdain all religions equally, and have equal disrespect for all judeo-christian-muslim organized religion, and don't care one whiff if they are shown to be evil or not- WHAT I DO CARE ABOUT- is this administrations cover up after cover up after cover up, and not about whether or not GW is getting some action in the oval office, but real issues, issues that effect everyone in this country.

I am on the fence on the release these days- like Mrs P (I don't know if she knows anyone personally on the ground, I forget )- I don't want the folks related to me or I know NEEDLESSLY endangered. And that is the key word "Needlessly".

If this brings down the GW and neo-con movement and changes American foriegn policy for decades to come- well, I am all for it then. If no other reason than to show how brutish humans can be to humans, then I am again' it.

So, how do we go about seeing if these pics are germane to behavior in the
GW administration? Herein lies the rub, wouldn't you agree? Who gets to see the photos? Who decideds if they are germane? I would vote on the ACLU, they seem to be the only organization in America today really interested in freedom for Americans with any clout any more.

I would agree with you Mrs. P that we need to be concerned with our troops safety, but the reasons why I support the pictures release, in fact was for it from the start is by releasing only certain pictures allowed media pundits and others to say it was just some college type hazing or not torture. When in fact from what some were saying before the Senate committee hearing and at the hearing was it was much more then just hazing, but that is not what the average person would usually get out of the tv news soundbite. So I believe in order to set the record straight let the pictures out in full, if people don't want to view them they don't need to. But they would not be able to hide behind the curtain of just some college hazing and what not.

Just to show what some contributors to the boards have said in the past here's a few examples.

USA Sanctions Abuse, Perception and Reality



If this is all that happened I might agree with this statement by leder, but its not all that happened. When stories only report parts of what happened you get this kind of reaction, but if the story contained everything that was done it wouldn't allow the reader to deny that torture was done.

Human Rights and National Security, Where does human rights fit?



Does Sen. Jim Inhofe make you sick?, comments from today's hearing



Which you might only get if you view some articles in newspapers or on TV is the pictures of the naked men in a pyramid cheerleading stance. And think wow the media is blowing this all out of proportion because most people aren't going to take the time like we do to read reports from the government like the Tuguba report. Sometimes we need to be made to understand the full gravity of things by not just relying on other people telling us, but seeing for ourselves if we feel the need to completely understand something.

A very good article that does show some of the already published photos but also does go into what the Tuguba Report found a little bit, if everyone had read that or if the MSM published the findings I might agree the photo's aren't necessary, because their would be no deny the facts. But thats not what happened generally the media would report on one part or the other and not give a complete picture of the gravity of what had happened.

Abu Ghraib

Mrs P- cadman does make a point I forgot to include- the right wing spin that this is not torture, but no more than some fun ol' hazing. There has been numerous posters here that have called it such- as Cadman quoted. To point out that this is torture, that does make for a compelling case to release the photos.

I dunno I feel cadman made his point and refuted such claims that is was more prankster than it was torture quite well. Why does he need flashy photos to throw around? What it is that you want is a more convenient and easily accessible means of doing this. How does the desire to use images like this to better inform or enlighten others differ from the objectives of the pro-lifers who stand around showing images of dead babies?

I had to deal with the idea last week that the Army wanted my husband to go to Iraq. He is not enlisted...he is not a soldier and yet he was asked if he would be willing to go to Bahgdad. Thankfully his work could only afford to send one person (his boss) to Iraq because the required health ins. is so expensive.

Many people feel it is a woman's right to enter a abortion clinic and not have to be physically and emotionally harassed or endangered upon entering. Enough to have made it law...1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. They feel her rights to safe access outweighs any other's right to speech, right to assembly or right to protest, arguably three of the most important rights in our society. And yet many here can't be bothered to extend such ideology to the men and women who are asked to go to Iraq to do nothing more than their jobs. Why?

It is a very tough balancing act bucket- the need for a open and transparent goverment in order to have a free society vs 'keeping the troops safe"- then you have to ask yourself- would the troops be in MORE danger than they are now? Do the iraqis themselves not already know what is going on?

I am somewhat swayed by cadman and others argument on this- because GW has punished the foot soldiers for what is his admins policy, and then, sent his spin corp out to poo-poo it to his 'constituents" that it is no more than hazing.

Perhaps some of these photos being released might finally lead to a special prosecutor that is rabidly anti-bush being appointed so we can run this issue to ground, along with every other item of lying and wrongdoing or rumour of wrongdoing a' la' Ken Star and finally get some answers as to who and what is doing who and what.

It, in the end, may be the only thing that gets some real light out of this administration.

And I am not sure if it would really put our troops in any worse jeprody than they already are.

CR, you are make your oppositions case for them - Do the iraqis themselves not already know what is going on?
Don't Americans themselves already know what happened in Abu Graib? Thanks to the NYT running front page pieces like it was the Natalee Holloway story, further release of photos adds nothing to the debate except pure political bias.
And that, not what is best for the country or the troops, seems to be your only motive for releasing the photos.

Yes DTOM- once again, I understand where you are coming from- but you also see, on this site, folks making the very case that this is just some harmless fun hazing, you know "oo, the desert gets hot, big deal" comments?

Transparency IS something worth fighting for, unlike the war in Iraq

I can't get my head around this one. If the images don't show anything that compromises any one who is not already convicted, then whats the big deal? Releasing the pictures to a court of law makes no difference. Is it not possible to grant a court exclusive access to the images so that any guilty people can be tried?

If not, why not?

If the images compromise people who have not already been tried then with holding the images make the US government an accessory to the crime.

What bothers me so much is the idea that obeying the law will put people's lives in danger. I know that people's lives are often in danger when they are called upon to give evidence against dangerous people but in this respect, the people said to be in danger are already in the deepest danger it is possible to be in and the notion that releasing these photo's are going to inspire Muslims to kill American soldiers seems so devoid of reason as to be an excuse for something far more sinister...

Namely, protecting the Bush administration from the political backlash that will inevtably result from public scrutiny.

OK, let's take this apart carefully. First, you say that the only purpose for releasing the photos is public curiosity, presumably morbid curiosity. That's not the case. The incentive of those wanting the release of the photos is clearly political. They want to embarrass the Bush administration. That doesn't sanctify their effort, nor does it disqualify their effort. It's politics and politics should not enter into this decision. As I said, we should do it by the book.

The main point you make is that release of the photos would endanger the troops. The logic here is reasonable: releasing the photos would inflame Muslim opinion, leading to more recruits for the terrorists and more attacks on our troops. But I think we need to consider this in both the short term and the long term. There is no question that release of the photos would lead to a short term spike in Muslim outrage and a short-term increase in recruits for terrorism. But now let's consider the long term. If we don't release the photos, then we have a continuing foundation for Muslim belief in American conspiratorial behavior. "Those Americans are secretly doing horrible things to people, and they are covering it up." That argument doesn't produce a thousand recruits today, but it will produce a few recruits every week. Over the long run, we're worse off. Whereas if we release the photos now, it comes across as an act of contrition. We are confessing our sins to the world. In the short term, the sins will dominate thinking, but over the long term, the salutary effect of the confession will be greater than the corrosive effect of the sins.

Business has learned this lesson. During the 70s and 80s, businesses stonewalled when they screwed up. But they learned that a coverup creates a continuing poisonous atmosphere that hurts them in small ways at every turn. Nowadays, business PR consultants are unanimous in their advice: when you screw up, come clean immediately, make a clean breast of it, suffer the consequences, and put it behind you. In the long run, that's what works best.

The greatest benefit of the release of these photos is internal, not external. Truth is always good for the soul, even ugly truth. If we look at those photos and realize that ultimately America is responsible for these outrages, then perhaps it will soften American hearts to the horrors of war. There are still people in denial about the horrible realities of torture, and people in denial about the horrors of war. There's nothing like photographs to shatter those mad fantasies of the nobility of war. People should see photos of shattered bodies, blood-spattered little girls, children with no legs, mothers crying at funerals. It's part of the reality of war, and knowing reality is always good.


Actually, I have always been consistent on this point. You implicitly accuse me of hypocrisy and I challenge you to back up your accusation with an actual quote; failing in that, to offer an apology. I believe that all public information should be public. If I am in a public place, then I have no objection to somebody taking a photograph or video of me. If I'm in private, then I expect my privacy to be respected. What's so ridiculous about that?

Your previous quote: "Only the guilty hide in shadows. The innocent are happy to have the truth be known".

My quote: "This line even falls flat on arguments you have made on other issues. Don't have anything to hide? Why should you fear infringement of privacy?"

Your quote here: "If I'm in private, then I expect my privacy to be respected."

Why? What have you to hide? Only the guilty hide in shadows!

Again, per the topic, I fail to see any cover-up here. The report is out. The public's right to see classified material is limited if the release of that material has the potential to harm others.