As reported on the Daily Kos, new photos have been released regarding the prisoner treatment at Abu Ghraib by the Sydney Morning Herald via a news program called SBS Dateline, which plans to broadcast the photos.

warning: the Daily Kos site does have some of the photos, and though they are below the fold, they are pretty shocking and likely not safe for work

Questions for Debate:
1) Should the photos have remained suppressed? Why or why not?

2) Given that the present administration acted aggressively to try and suppress the photos, will the release of them renew calls for closing the prisons like Abu Ghraib and/or Guantanamo?

3) How will (or should) the Bush Administration respond to the new photos?

Um..I saw these photos on CNN..while I was still sipping on my coffee thanks CNN, glad your concerns about offensive material is evenly applied. It is not a story only reported by this Daily Kos site..it is all over the place...very very mainstream.




I used to think that some form of censorship was needed, ONLY because we are currently at war in Iraq and this information would unquestionably be used against us in this war.

I changed my mind...as I just don't think such sensitivity is anymore useful or required. I don't feel the objective of such suppression of information is worth the goal intended as I feel it will have very little impact in the big picture.

Never! Unless you want to admit you live in an oppressive censored society. Although, there is sound reasoning as to why America wouldn't want them released.

World will demand it. US will ignore it. That's the system, based on past events.

1.) No. America has the right to access all information without hinderance.

2.) Only if a politician with further political ambitions chooses to. It is unlikely that it will suddenly anger the mainstream American without some kind of stirring up. Some kind of political advocate or actual career political will bring it up and it will gain momentum because they chose to cash in on it.

3.) I will choose not to speak for the White House. I am unsure really and it could get downright interesting to see if they play different sides in this new case.

1) Should the photos have remained suppressed? Why or why not?
No. If the photos were in public hands, the press should be able to print them at will.

2) Given that the present administration acted aggressively to try and suppress the photos, will the release of them renew calls for closing the prisons like Abu Ghraib and/or Guantanamo?
No, I don't think so. The people calling for the closing of these prisons have never been there and have no idea what they are talking about. There was a problem at Abu Ghraib, but I would be that after it got out, that prison is probably the safest and best prison we have. Conditions at Guantanamo are almost worse for the guards than for the prisoners, and most the abuses are coming from the prisoners, not the other way around.

3) How will (or should) the Bush Administration respond to the new photos?
Judging from the past, that administration will probably react in the worst possible way, whatever that may be. They should just ignore it. This is not news. The press should be free to print the pictures, but they are not newsworthy.

I have a "better" question, Qui Bono?

The release did not reveal anything that hadn't already been investigated 67 times, and has had punishment met out for the acts. The results are predictable:
1)Harry Reid is probably all over the TV this morning wanting more hearings.
2)The Muslims are rioting somewhere (or everywhere).
3) The Red Cross, UN, and every "Human Rights" organization in the universe has got fresh fodder.

The reason to try and avoid release is the same reason not to pick a scab. Some are intent on keeping wounds festering vs caring for them and allowing them to heal.

Isn't it amazing that the very same outlets (Yes CNN, that's you) who are too afraid to print Muslim cartoons are so anxious to give the jihadists gratuitous ammunition?

Pal, Sorry for the conservative acronym, MSM = mainstream media
Yogs

US is the "pillar of democracy" isn't it? So is the claim...

In a democracy supression can not be tolerated. Let the public know and decide.

If people are angered by such photos they have evry right to be so.

1) Should the photos have remained suppressed? Why or why not?

I think that enough photo's have been released...enough. If those that release these pictures to the general public are doing so out of concern for the prisoners than I think it is counterproductive to abuse the prisoners privacy rights by showing these compromising photos...(i have not viewed them so I do not actually know what is being shown)


2) Given that the present administration acted aggressively to try and suppress the photos, will the release of them renew calls for closing the prisons like Abu Ghraib and/or Guantanamo?

Most likely, however, their calls for closure will fall on deaf ears. The administration has already confronted this issue and they have made up their minds.

3) How will (or should) the Bush Administration respond to the new photos?

I think it needs to be handled privately, yet firmly. But, do ya'll really think that these two prisons are somehow exceptions to normal practices in prisons? I think this type of abuse is widespread and has been going on for years. There is a fine line between practices used to make people talk and torture. I think it gets blurred a lot.

In case anyone is interested Salon.com has just published a much more extensive collection of the photos. There are some duplicates from the original Australian story, but there are tons of new ones as well.

I just looked at the photos on salon.com. This is the first time I have seen the Abu Ghraib pictures. I have been blase' about the torture claims in the past and I still do not believe that this constitutes torture. Yet this is without a doubt criminal behavior. Disgusting and perverted, the minds that come up with these sick ideas are not needed in the US military. The National Guard is embarrassed by this and I think everyone in a supervisory position from the prison commandant on down to the actual perpetrators of the crimes should be punished.

I hate this line of thinking.

It is not the Media printing picture of Americans torturing prisoners which is giving the jihadists ammunistion, it is the Americans torturing prisoners which give the jihadists ammunition.

Blaming 'the media' for this is like blaming the police for ruining your reputation when they arrest you for murder.

If 'the truth' gives jihadists ammunition against the US, where exactly does the problem lie?

And trying to make some kind compairason between CNN deciding not to print the mohammed cartoons is absurd. One was done out of a combination of respect and trying to make a bad situation worse for no reason. The other was exposing criminal acts of the US government and military.