In a dramatic and high-profile reversal for his young administration, President Barack Obama is seeking to block the release of 44 photographs depicting abuse of detainees in U.S. military custody in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In a dramatic and high-profile reversal for his young administration, President Barack Obama is seeking to block the release of 44 photographs depicting abuse of detainees in U.S. military custody in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The “O” has enough skeletons, knows where to leave ’em.
Dennis Miller is performing at Gitmo today. I’m REALLY looking forward to his take on the place in the coming days!!
Obama lied Omar Khadr cried and Dick Cheney sighed.
What? Obama flip-flopped? He has no idea what he’s doing? Releasing these detainees could be dangerous? NO! I refuse to believe it! Hope and change and…stuff….
Didn’t Obama promise to close down Guantanamo?
Then, he suspended all trials, which ensured the inmates could not be released?
Including Omar Khadr, whose trial may have been over by now?
It’s much easier to run a country when you hate the guy who’s actually running the country.
OK. That might be kinda weak. Just a variation on my ‘the best parents are those who have no children.’
I wonder how many people of power there are within
the innermost circle of the US Government? Pelosi
is utterly without brains, and Reid has no spine.
So on matters of national security I only know of
Obama, Clinton, and Emanuel. On national security
they don’t seem to be moonbattish. There must be someone else.
I still have a few hopes for Obama. He hasn’t repudiated his position on gay marriange (opposed to it) yet, for example.
Obongo is making it up as he goes along.
He is an idiot with an education based on the ‘no scum bag left behind’ policy.
I think the release of the photos violates the Geneva Convention. It may not be smarts after all.
A set-up from the start:
“You leak that we’re gonna release the photos, then, after a day or two, I’ll say, ‘No, we can’t compromise national security’, see what I mean ?”
Once again the government of the people, for the people, and by the people will…hide from its own people?
I’m so sick of the lack of moral culpability within society…I remember when there used to be a great deal of debate about whether a private should follow the orders of a superior officer if he feels that those orders are inhumane, illegal, etc. When it was ruled that they were culpable, and unable to hide behind their superior officers, it turns out that those in power were merely securing their own positions and ensured their advancement while letting the kid who barely got his GED gets thrown in jail for doing exactly what everyone around him is doing.
While I agree that releasing the photos could help inspire Islamic insurgencies around the world, I feel like its a very feeble argument to hide behind. If the photos were released it serves as a reminder to senior officials to not tolerate this kind of behavior and ensure that it does not happen in the future. If its swept under the rug it allows the government and others to act with impunity assuming that their actions will never be revealed to the public.
At the least Obama needs to promise a release date of the photo’s…most likely after U.S. soldiers leave Iraq.
My guess is that Obama is being made aware that he has already alienated the CIA and is now alienating the military.
And, he’s in trouble with public awareness of Pelosi and her refusal to disapprove Enhanced Interrogation, in particular, the reference to the three people who were waterboarded.
So, he’s walking down a corridor with doors closing rapidly on each side – and that’s why he’s backing off.
Don’t worry, his TOTUS can explain it all to him.
Pelosi told Obama that if any of the pictures of her getting jiggy with the terrorists were made public, she stop “visiting” the space under his desk in the Whitehouse.
the big o is playing a very dangerous game. you can only keep so many balls (lies) in the air at any given time. sooner or later you will drop them. when he does the people, those who actually have critical analysis skills, will remove the asshole and it won’t be pleasant.
bar jebus, f–k the islamic jihad kill them where you find them.
barjebus – I don’t agree with releasing the photos. They are already public, i.e., known to the military governance and this governance can take the steps to try to prevent future similar behaviour by guards.
To release them to the general public wouldn’t increase senior level awareness and they would instead be used in utterly invalid biased arguments against both the military and America.
You know the type of invalid argument, where you move from the particular instance(s) to a claim of universality. This is the invalid argument where you claim that because five Americans did X, then ALL Americans behave the same way. And that’s how these pictures will be used – in that invalid argument.
To assume, as you are assuming, that the military is incapable of policing its own behaviour and can only be kept in check by full-scale public view, is without foundation. After all, the military has its military discipline and laws (Uniform Code of Military Justice in the USA), it has its military courts, or court martials.
There is absolutely no justification for a public gossip about military violations; the public is not privy to all the facts, to the rules, to the courts.
ET,
Would you feel the same way about the RCMP or a municipal police service in Canada? If there were allegations that the RCMP has stripped people naked, sodomized them (that is the most recent allegations that these pictures are supposed to prove), and treated their prisoners inhumanely, would you trust the RCMP to investigate itself thoroughly and without bias?
Quis custōdiet ipsōs custōdēs? Who will watch the watchers? I agree that its great that the military has taken the time to investigate these claims and trangressions, but no senior officers have been charged…kind of suspicious when 400 people get disciplined for detainee abuse, and no senior officers are held responsible.
Maybe Big Ears Obama found out how big of file the CIA has on him…
bar_jebus
Unless your side loses, no “senior officer” is EVER held responsible. Nor politician.
Notice that Martin and Chretien walk free but a couple of ad men are in jail. The ad men just took the free money as per the agreements they had with the politicians. They weren’t the ones with the duty to ensure public money was properly accounted for.
very good herminator. you are probably close to the truth. if the fbi and cia don’t know who the big o really is then nobody does.
barjebus – the RCMP is not a military unit and has no similar code of rules or court, to that of the military. Therefore, it’s a false analogy.
The lack of clear disciplinary standards and procedures of discipline in the RCMP is indeed a flaw but it’s a flaw in the structure of the RCMP.
No, it isn’t the case that the ‘military has taken the time to investigate’, which suggests that normative standards preclude such investigations. Normative standards include investigations of improper treatment and behaviour by any and all members of the military.
No, I don’t see why senior military officers should be prosecuted for the behaviour of junior staff. The individuals directly responsible for such behaviour are the ones to be prosecuted.
I’d bet the photos would elicit a response of “You call THAT abuse?” which won’t fit the O’s narrative.
ET,
Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I believe the RCMP does have a code:
“Duties and Discipline of RCMP
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/R-10/93663.html
PART IV
DISCIPLINE
37. It is incumbent on every member
(a) to respect the rights of all persons;
(b) to maintain the integrity of the law, law enforcement and the administration of justice;
(c) to perform the member’s duties promptly, impartially and diligently, in accordance with the law and without abusing the member’s authority;
(d) to avoid any actual, apparent or potential conflict of interests;
(e) to ensure that any improper or unlawful conduct of any member is not concealed or permitted to continue;
(f) to be incorruptible, never accepting or seeking special privilege in the performance of the member’s duties or otherwise placing the member under any obligation that may prejudice the proper performance of the member’s duties;
(g) to act at all times in a courteous, respectful and honourable manner; and
(h) to maintain the honour of the Force and its principles and purposes.
R.S., 1985, c. R-10, s. 37; R.S., 1985, c. 8 (2nd Supp.), s. 16.”
Perhaps you meant that the codes are not similar enough…I’m not sure. Regardless, I believe the RCMP have a code of conduct to uphold, and that they in fact do have disciplinary standards and procedures for infractions. Public inquiries are not the only situation that an officer would recieve a suspension, disciplinary action, demotion, or firing for not conducting themselves in a manner deemed worthy of the RCMP, so I believe its a very valid analogy.
Back to the issue though…whether there would be an real benefit to releasing the photographs of abuse of detainees. The concern that these images may be used for nefarious reasons is rather obvious. I think the Islamists have enough fuel for that fire to burn brightly for the next few decades. Do you think that suddenly, as a result of these pictures, hundreds of young unemployed arabs will rise up because of some pictures of Americans bullying some prisoners? I think the fact that thousands of civilians have died in Iraq and Afghanistan as a result of U.S. bombings is enough to have spurred any potential Islamist to join Al-Qaeda or some other militant group.
The other concern I could see is that there are many Americans who are highly suspicious and critical of the U.S. military. They routinely defame, besmirch, and smear the honor of the military, and point to the many abuses in the past. For its own citizenry to begin to trust and appreciate their armed forces, I think that total transparency is required. For the government to come clean, own up to crimes that its service members have committed, and show that they take this very seriously would be refreshing to say the least.
barjebus – yes, I’m aware of that code and I find it amorphous, subject to a variety of mixed and contrary interpretations and thus, inadequate for a self-policing system. That’s why I said that their code was inadequate. This is quite different to the military code and process.
Certainly, the pictures can be used to continue the relentless political use by the Islamic fascists to try to hide their own power-agendas of control within the smog of anti-Americanism. But they don’t need those pictures for that strategy; they can get ‘high’ on pure fiction all by themselves.
Your statement that ‘thousands of civilians have died as a result of US bombings’ is superficial and without context. You are ignoring the cause of these bombings, which was the removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
Both were brutual regimes that killed more than ‘thousands of their own civilians’. Therefore, your suggestion that the removal of these dictators would contribute to Islamic fascism is without merit.
Islamic fascism doesn’t need such ‘texts’; Islamic fascism is caused by Islamic repression – not American bombings.
I also disagree with your view that ‘many Americans are suspicious and critical of the US military’ and that such opinions can be mitigated by a ‘public viewing of those pictures’.
The people on the left who reject the US military have moved, long ago, beyond the reach of critical thought and nothing will change their biased hatred of the military. To assume, as you do, that a public viewing will move them to support the military is without evidence. Instead, they will use them as welcome fodder for their continued antipathy to the military.
There is no need for the government to ‘come clean’ and own up to these abuses. You suggest that they are hidden; this is untrue. They are known already to the senior officials of the military and the government and the individuals who carried them out were tried in court martials, convicted and jailed. What more do you want? I repeat – the individuals were tried and convicted.
Your desire for a public viewing, quite frankly, seems to me to be actually a desire for irrational emotionalism. After all, the court cases about them are over, the individuals are convicted and jailed. Therefore, what’s your agenda, other than to somehow, as Obama’s agenda has been, to somehow link the causes of this behaviour to Bush and his administration and to smear, defile and demean that era.
This agenda has nothing to do with the behaviour of these guards. I suggest that you, and others who wish to demean and denigrate the work of Bush, ought to use hard data that is directly linked to Bush, rather than this style of ‘six degrees of separation’ from cause to result still means that the first dot is the basic cause. Reality doesn’t work that way.
“I think the release of the photos violates the Geneva Convention. It may not be smarts after all.
Posted by: Speedy at May 13, 2009 3:57 PM ”
These scum are NOT covered by the Geneva Convention. They are not enemy combatants they are ununiformed terrorists and should have been shot instead of imprisoned.
With Obama’s pending apologies to the Muslim world for America’s war-on-terror, wouldn’t release of photos be bad PR?
Come on admit it barjebus, your “We’re All Hezzbula Now ” floppy bristol board picket signs just look old.
djb you got part of it, the other half is Obama wants to portray the photos/ acts as being so horrible they should not see the light of day. This way he can keep his support base focused and foaming on about Bush and how horrible the US and its military is.
Bar
I’d just like to add my 2 cents to your conversation. I agree that releasing the photos will create more anger towards the US is a poor argument; yet, the argument that releasing the photos increases a risk to American soldiers is accurate. I’d also like to add that I agree with ET regarding the in-house procedures and military courts. That being said, the real reason not to release the pictures is… there is no justifiable reason to divulge tactics to the enemy. Every time the Americans release sensitive military information to the public they are “showing their cards” to some extent. We can argue in circles about what information is sensitive and what isn’t, but the greater point remains: Public pressure should have no bearing on what the military decides is or isn’t suitable information for public viewing.
FREE They may not be covered but the US is. While they were taking the high moral ground how many noticed the Dems. voted down investigation into voting irregularities and fundraising activities? A quarter of overseas votes were not counted, a lot of them military votes. The campaign funding issues were voted down and the informed have an idea what went on there. Most people only read about Gitmo and which lie Pelosi was on at the time. When she outed the CIA they weren’t going to protect her with any convenient denial. You know I know what you know but I won’t tell until you tell what I know.
Bar
Kudos to you for not flip-flopping because the Owe said so. Although I feel you are wrong, at least I don’t feel like I’m reading rhetoric from a disingenuous hater.
“Geneva Convention:
Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.”
Terrorists don’t usually have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, which makes them hard to fight against and identify. IE. those who commandeer planes into buildings.
This puts the terrorists plainly outside the Geneva Convention and ‘laws of war’.
Terrorists plainly don’t want to be open to the normal rules of combat, so one would gather the terrorists don’t want the protections afforded by the Geneva Convention either.
The whole game for the terrorist is to play ‘sneak attack’ while not openly being identified with any particular country where the normal rules would apply.
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Time to stop the mamby-pamby pussy campaign and just carpet bomb the buggers back to the 10th century.
It would take zero bombs since that is the level their society had evolved to when it stopped in its tracks.
Obama is playing political theatre here. First he says he will release. Then he says he won’t. All this does is stir the imagination of the media; imply that the photos are worse than we can imagine; and he covers this with a hypocritical “I won’t put US troops and citizens into jeopardy”. I am inclined to think this is just another piece of the campaign to put Bush into the dock at the International Criminal Court. Obama’s people are in an unholy alliance with the fanatical anti-Bush Brigade who want to prosecute every White House and Cabinet official of the past eight years.
This is a very dangerous stunt that Obama is forwarding. It will lead to the breakdown of government in the US..
I concede that the Military’s system of discipline is superior to the RCMP’s civilian one, but my point remains the same…I find it hard to believe that the Military could be completely objective on this issue. If its a question regarding a soldiers conduct when it comes to safety of Americans, the troops, or national security, I would gladly let a court martial run its course. But as Vietnam has shown us, the military isn’t all that eager to plaster blame all over its own people when it comes to human rights abuses.
My statement about bombings morally neutral; the fact remains that civilians were killed by the thousands as a result of American action. Whether its justified or not means absolutely nothing to those who have lost family members.
“Both were brutual regimes that killed more than ‘thousands of their own civilians’. Therefore, your suggestion that the removal of these dictators would contribute to Islamic fascism is without merit.”
Do you think the average Iraqi or Afghan cares about that? If I were an uneducated young man with no real prospects and half my family was dead due to an invasion by foreign forces whose religion I’ve been taught to hate or at the very least despise, do you think that a few pictures of some random strangers being humiliated by the U.S. would really send me over the edge into becoming an Islamofacist?
What I’m trying to say is that these pictures are insignificant when you compare it against the other propaganda Islamists have at their disposal.
“Your desire for a public viewing, quite frankly, seems to me to be actually a desire for irrational emotionalism. After all, the court cases about them are over, the individuals are convicted and jailed.”
No, I believe my motives are grounded in the idea that a democratic country can rarely be too open or transparent. The ACLU had to fight tooth and nail in court to even have this information revealed to the public…how can the public choose its elected officials if we have no idea what impact those decisions are causing around the world? This isn’t a national security issue (unless you believe that this will inspire more Islamists, which I whole heartedly doubt). As such, I think the public should be free to know the full extent of the abuses perpetrated by their own armed forces. The reasons for _not_ showing these pictures are a sham…its time for America to take responsibility for its actions. I agree that those who committed the crimes are now in jail…I’m just saying that if you bring armed forces into a country, and they perpetrate a crime, you’re responsible for their actions. You can’t just say, “well those people are crazy…we have nothing to do with it”, and repeat that 400 times.
empty suit
empty promises
it’s really apparent that Obama hasnt a clue of what he is doing.
barjebus – you may find it hard to believe that the military could be objective but that statement of your belief is not a proof. Equally, one could declare that it is hard to believe that a regular court could be objective – and equally without evidence.
I don’t think your reference to Vietnam is evidence; again, it is an assumption on your part without any evidence or data to support your claim.
What is your point about civilians killed by American bombs? Equally, what about civilians killed by Islamic fascist bombs? What is the point you are trying to make? A war has casualties. What’s your point? If you are claiming to be a pacifist, then, please make that clear.
You are ignoring the causes of Islamic fascism, which is not the West or America, but tribal control of the economy and political systems in those areas – which leads to the angst and vulnerablity to utopian fascist ideals of those uneducated unemployed young men.
You are also ignoring the thousands killed by the Iraq and Afghanistan dictatorship.
Islamic fascism did not emerge after 9-11. It emerged in the generation before that time and did not emerge as a result of the West, but as a result of the repressive tribal rule in the ME. Therefore your suggestion that jihadism is because ‘half my family’ were killed by the West ignores that ‘half my family’ were killed by the tribal dictators in that area in the decades before this period.
And your idea that openness and transparency are indicative of a democracy is, in my view, invalid. Openness and transparency are indeed required in parliament, in all political issues, in the allotment of the taxpayer money.
BUT, openness and transparency are not required in all areas; for example, the military and protection services should not expose their strategies for keeping track of criminals, etc, etc; the intelligence services should not expose their strategies..etc. In economic affairs, some issues are open but private corporations are – well, they are private – even in a democracy.
I absolutely do not see how the abuse by some members of the military has any relationship to our voting for our elected officials. After all, our elected officials did not order or take part in these events – therefore – what’s the relationship?
Again, you are making the error of moving a particular instance to a universal, when you say ‘abuses perpetrated by their own armed forces’. This statement is untrue.
The armed forces (understood as a universal, i.e., the whole armed forces) did not order or carry out these abuses. A few individuals in the armed forces did this, and they were tried and punished.
Again, you are doing the same error of moving from the particular to the universal. America DID NOT carry out these actions. A few individuals who are American did them. Your constant tactic of moving a particular instance to a general, a universal, is completely fallacious. It’s like saying that because one man robbed a store then all men must take responsibility for his robbery.
Therefore, your insistance that ‘America must take responsibility for its actions’ is nonsense.
America didn’t carry out these actions.
Again, it isn’t the case that ‘if you bring armed forces into a country and they perpeturate a crime’ – again, you are transforming the particular to the universal. The armed forces, understood as the WHOLE army did NOT commit a crime. A few individuals did, and they were held responsible. Therefore, the army did behave responsibly; it charged them and tried them in a military court. What else do you want?
Why do you want the people who did not participate in these actions, the people who were brave and honourable soldiers – why do you want to denigrate and smear their actions and names?
Again, your constant transforming of the particular into the universal is a fallacious generalization.
[quote] The reasons for _not_ showing these pictures are a sham…its time for America to take responsibility for its actions.[/quote]
bar_jebus,
How can you be so sure that American public opinion would be beneficial to your point of view? The suppression of all the pictures of those pll jumping from the twin towers was done to allow the Government to form a “moderate” response, without public outrage. BTW those pictures still exist………….
I am an American and it is MHO that we have advanced weaponry that would make your worst nightmare seem like a walk in the park. Do you want the public demanding that all these weapons be deployed?
If we the people (public opinion) drive the train, the interrogations could involve castration (no virgins for you).
The possible blow back to your argument has more thorns than roses!
“It’s much easier to run a country when you hate the guy who’s actually running the country.”
Posted by: set you free at May 13, 2009 3:44 PM
Just to add a bit to that,
It’s a whole lot of different set of circumstances when you replace the guy who was running things and while disagreeing with him by ignorance, you have to follow through with what he has started when reality hits you right between the eyes.
“You may find it hard to believe that the military could be objective but that statement of your belief is not a proof.”
-The military doesn’t have a stellar record of investigating crimes committed by its own people. You think my references to Vietnam war are just random leftard hysteria…have we all forgotten My Lai? 300 – 500 civilians brutally killed, sexually abused, and in some cases mutilated. The only person to ever go to jail is William Casey, and he only served 3 years of his life sentence. This wasn’t some accident where “oops”, we bombed a building full of people. This was systemic, walking around, raping people, then blowing them away. During that time, the Vietnam war was extremely unpopular in the publics eye….so do you honestly think the gov’t is willing to investigate and prosecute to the full extent of the law, soldiers who commit crimes against civilians? They lose either way.
“What is your point about civilians killed by American bombs? Equally, what about civilians killed by Islamic fascist bombs? What is the point you are trying to make? A war has casualties. What’s your point? If you are claiming to be a pacifist, then, please make that clear.”
-I’m not a pacifist, and I’m not denying the realities of war. Do you honestly believe that the average Iraqi, when faced with the death of a large portion of his family, will simply shrug his shoulders and say aloud, “oh well, at least they got rid of Saddam”. Or perhaps “well gee, thats what happens in wars, people get hurt…I suppose I can’t really blame the Americans, because at least they _try_ to not kill innocents”.
“which is not the West or America, but tribal control of the economy and political systems in those areas”
-I in fact stated that unemployed young Iraqi men with little education and no prospects are the cause of insurgencies, in case you missed that. Now, add onto that a dead family member (whether by Islamists or by Americans…they’re dead either way, and thats a direct result of Americans invading. Its not logical, but thats how people react) and you’ve got a recipe for extremism.
“Therefore your suggestion that jihadism is because ‘half my family’ were killed by the West ignores that ‘half my family’ were killed by the tribal dictators in that area in the decades before this period.”
-I concede that point, but would like to add that those dictators are largely kept in power by the West. Hence the Iranian Revolution.
“Therefore, your insistance that ‘America must take responsibility for its actions’ is nonsense.”
-I agree, my use of universals has been unwise. Generally the point I’m trying to make here is that although it was individuals who perpetrated these crimes, its America’s responsibility as an occupier to ensure those crimes do not continue to be committed. If 400 were disciplined/prosecuted for abuse, I would suggest that the unreported number is a fair bit higher. I will say that being an occupying force for 6 years while dealing with a very violent insurgency that the U.S.’s record is rather good in how they’ve conducted themselves. Which is all the more reason to be completely open and honest regarding their mistakes.
Just imagine for a second how the world would have reacted if the Pentagon came out with these pictures and stories without the ACLU having to fight in court for years to even prove that these crimes occurred. If they straight out came to the public and said, some of our members screwed up, here’s what we’ve done about it, here’s the changes we’ve implemented, here’s the people who have been brought to justice…don’t you think that would make an difference in the way that the public views the military?
“I am an American and it is MHO that we have advanced weaponry that would make your worst nightmare seem like a walk in the park. Do you want the public demanding that all these weapons be deployed?”
When did I ever say I object to war, weapons, or violence? I’m merely saying that if the Canadian forces had over 400 of _reported_ cases (many more cases were most likely not reported), that I’d want to not just hear some vague details about it, but to know the individual cases of abuse. I don’t object to the war in Afghanistan, and I find it sad that so many Canadians no longer support the war, but the public needs to be informed about what occurs overseas in the name of its people. ET’s contention that we’re revealing “military secrets” by releasing pictures of unsanctioned torture is absolutely ridiculous.