Tags:


Defense Department Refuses to Turn Over Abuse Photographs
July 22, 2005 4:46 PM   Subscribe

Defense Department Refuses to Turn Over Abuse Photographs
Today was the day the government was supposed to process and redact photographs and videos relating to the abuse and torture of prisoners held abroad. Raising new arguments on the eve of its deadline, the United States government refused to release the materials to the public.
June 1, 2005, court order [PDF]; statement from the Center for Constitutional Rights.
posted by kirkaracha (104 comments total)

 
Now why would they do that unless they had something to hide?
posted by clevershark at 4:52 PM on July 22, 2005


This is an honest question: Did anyone actually think they were going to be released?
posted by Jairus at 4:54 PM on July 22, 2005


jarius : yeah I guess the ones who love them, relatives or parents. Delusion yeah, but one gotta understand their hope.
posted by elpapacito at 4:59 PM on July 22, 2005


elpapacito: You mean the iraqi's? I think it's pretty clear no one in the government actualy cares about them After all a terrorist attack a day there is certanly a resonable price to prevent a terrorist a year over here.
posted by delmoi at 5:02 PM on July 22, 2005


From the Center for Constitutional Rights statement:
In June, the government requested and received an extension from the judge stating that they needed time in order to redact the faces of the men, women and children believed to be shown in the photographs and videos. They were given until today to produce the images, but at the eleventh hour filed a motion to oppose the release of the photos and videos, based on an entirely new argument: they are now requesting a 7(F) exemption from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act to withhold law enforcement-related information in order to protect the physical safety of individuals.
So they got an extension to protect the privacy of the individuals in the photos and videos, and on the day of the deadline (and in a Friday five o'clock document dump) they want an exemption to protect the individuals in the photos and videos.

Here's an archive of documents the ACLU has gotten from the military.
posted by kirkaracha at 5:05 PM on July 22, 2005


So I'm curious to see where the comments from the Republican contingent are?

Paris? Dhoyt? Anyone?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 5:17 PM on July 22, 2005


How is this any different from the rest of the lies? Or from Bush saying he'll punish the leak and then backing off that?

This is their reason? In a letter filed at the eleventh hour, the Department of Defense claims that photographs and videos of abuse that the court had previously ordered redacted for future release "could result in harm to individuals"

You mean like the people who ordered the torture? Oh, that would be a real tragedy.
posted by fenriq at 5:18 PM on July 22, 2005


I'm desperate to start an argument, will anyone start an argument with me? Plz post below with inflammatory statement.
posted by fire&wings at 5:22 PM on July 22, 2005


> Did anyone actually think they were going to be released?

My though was, at the time: how come they still let laws work against them.
posted by NewBornHippy at 5:23 PM on July 22, 2005


Its possible the administration will politically use the london bombings as a backdrop for not handing the photos over, in the interest of the "war on terror."
posted by The Jesse Helms at 5:31 PM on July 22, 2005


Dude, the courts are getting pwn3d on this one.
posted by mullingitover at 5:40 PM on July 22, 2005


Its possible the administration will politically use the london... Sharm el-Sheik... Turkish resort bombings as a backdrop for not handing the photos over, in the interest of the "war on terror."
posted by NewBornHippy at 5:41 PM on July 22, 2005


Did anyone actually think they were going to be released?

of course i did. they kept telling us that there was no torture there. they said they had investigators check it out, they said that those who had been released who said they had been tortured were liars and terrorist.

there were even congresspeople who went there who said there was no torture there. so yes, i expected the pics and vids to be released because my government had told me that everything was cool.
posted by tsarfan at 5:43 PM on July 22, 2005


I saw a couple of leaked videos already. Very strange. I thought I was watching Videodrome.

They feature a familiar and very portly, bald, past-middle-aged white man with round rimmed spectacles, completely nude squatting in his own filth and screaming for the guards to "...give it to me good you Liberal Nazi bitches!" Then the guards appear to be hitting him with rolled up copies of a recent edition of the Washington Post.
posted by tkchrist at 5:45 PM on July 22, 2005


So I'm curious to see where the comments from the Republican contingent are?

Paris? Dhoyt? Anyone?


Bzzz! Bad mistake. you can't say "republican", since they'll say "I didn't vote for" this or that, and "I'm to the left" as far as this or this is concerned.
Most of them say they "moderates", i e libertarians, or "moderates", i e more right-wing than the current US democratic party.
So they will call you on that.
What to call them? Beats me. "Nuts", maybe?
posted by mr.marx at 6:02 PM on July 22, 2005


Oh come on, if any of that lot didn't vote Republican, it's because either they're convicted felons or they slept in on election day (all the way to past 8pm apparently).
posted by clevershark at 6:39 PM on July 22, 2005


Call-outs in the blue suck (as they usually do in the gray). Let's not try to "Crossfireize" this place and expect rote positions from people you expect will disagree with you. They might say what you expect them to, but it's annoying to see people waiting with baited breath for the "conservative/right/republican" response. Just let the thread unfold as it will. I mean, if PP puts up a link to a conservative blog/viewpoint etc., it would look pretty assinine of him to post "OK Amberglow, matteo, y2karl, let's get it on! Your silence is tantamount to being so pwned!!!"

IMHO, these pics will get out somehow, but it may take a long while. I'll be even more bothered if Senators and Reps who may have seen these pictures in question don't speak out. I'm not looking forward to seeing them, but it would be nice for a moderate Rep. like Lindsey Graham to actually go out on a limb and admit that our ability to police Iraq has been far from competent, if not downright Draconian/Orwellian.
posted by bardic at 6:44 PM on July 22, 2005


Eeek: "Reps" meaning Representatives and "Rep." meaning Republican.
posted by bardic at 6:45 PM on July 22, 2005


bardic writes "Call-outs in the blue suck"

That wasn't a call-out, that was a call-in!
posted by clevershark at 6:50 PM on July 22, 2005


OK, so far we've established that nobody has anything useful to say or any insights to share. Carry on.
posted by warbaby at 6:51 PM on July 22, 2005


This is an abomination. That's my goddamned insight.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:56 PM on July 22, 2005


Mmm. I spent many of my outrage points as of late--must be the summer heat. But it's kind of like Rove--I hate the guy, hope he gets busted, but the ball is in Fitzgerald's court now. The ACLU has good lawyers, and there's no easy way out for the White House on this. It's not apathy, just a desire that hopefully things will work their way through the channels of power. Naive, I realize.
posted by bardic at 7:11 PM on July 22, 2005


Ok. Who do we fire? How do we fire that person? Where's that friggin Trump guy when you need 'im?

The U.S. is just going to get what it deserves for electing such a two-faced self-serving asshole.

I am not at all surprised by this "revelation". Wasn't it just a few day ago when the POTUS said something like, "Well, I'm trying to remember what I said a couple of days ago that really sounded important but didn't answer the question."

Seriously, that guy is laughing at us while he does whatever he sees fit. Damn the thinking behind his actions. The Fucker.
posted by snsranch at 7:12 PM on July 22, 2005


bardic: Isn't that basically what this was?
posted by aaronetc at 7:17 PM on July 22, 2005


Was it the lack of the internet, or did previous administrations no fuck up so badly, so often?
Was it that the only things we were told came out from Dan Rather and the like?
I don't remember stuff like this, (flagrant unaccountability, total disregard for the law), comming from other administrations.

At least the ones I can remember, at my ripe old age of 35.
posted by Balisong at 7:21 PM on July 22, 2005


yaaaaaawwwwwwnnnnn....

Seriously, that guy is laughing at us while he does whatever he sees fit

Of course he is. They all are. They're politicians. The joke is on us, always.
posted by a3matrix at 7:24 PM on July 22, 2005


I don't know if I really count as the right but since I've argued for some things that might be considered pro-administration, I can tell you what I think of this.
I think its despicable. We're supposed to be about the rule of law, and this type of crap makes a mockery of that.
Sorry if I disappointed anyone by forming my own independent reasoned opinions.
posted by forforf at 7:26 PM on July 22, 2005


Hi Bardic

I'm disgusted the photos won't be turned over, but not surprised. Any info on the abuses should be brought to light, and the DoD must have something to hide if it's claiming the release "could result in harm to individuals" -- too late for that.

So I'm curious to see where the comments from the Republican contingent are?

Paris? Dhoyt? Anyone?

Bzzz! Bad mistake. you can't say "republican", since they'll say "I didn't vote for" this or that, and "I'm to the left" as far as this or this is concerned.
Most of them say they "moderates", i e libertarians, or "moderates", i e more right-wing than the current US democratic party.
So they will call you on that.
What to call them? Beats me. "Nuts", maybe?


The gauntlet throw-down thing is pretty petty. I emailed you, lupus, to keep it out of the thread.

And Mr. Marx—who I've twice tried to email in order keep fights outside of the thread, but it hasn't seemed to discourage you—I'm sorry if the cognitive dissonance of a Kerry voter who also supports tough policies on terrorism is too much for your brain to bear. If it will lighten the load on your cerebral cortex, I can try harder in the future to fit into a pat, narrow, predictable, partisan rhetorical slot to make things easier. In forty eight hours you've called me "nuts" and "a fucking psychopath" yet I don't feel as though I've said anything too off-base.
posted by dhoyt at 7:28 PM on July 22, 2005


**nobody emails me to keep the fights out of thread.. 8=(..**
posted by Balisong at 7:50 PM on July 22, 2005


I think its despicable.

Good on ya, forforf. There are many reasons a true conservative or anyone who respects the rule of law should be appalled yet again at this administration's flagrant abuse of power. What really strikes me here is that by agreeing in June to redact and then release them, they conceded to the court's judgment of the public's right to know here. This latest twist proves the administration is setting itself above the law again. My god, I hope we have an honest judicial review of this nonsense, promptly. This is absolutely infantile as a delaying tactic, and shows contempt for the courts, international opinion, and the American public. I would give up a limb to see this bastard impeached and his minions jailed.
posted by realcountrymusic at 7:58 PM on July 22, 2005


realcountrymusic writes "This latest twist proves the administration is setting itself above the law again."

Actually it's a fairly standard courtroom tactic whereby the party in a lawsuit with the most resources keeps filing last-second motions and asking for continuances until the party with less resources eventually gives up.
posted by clevershark at 8:12 PM on July 22, 2005


dhoyt: twice? I've gotten one email from you, about a the "psychopath" thing. That turned out to be a misunderstanding, I apologized, and you said ok.

This one was not ment for you specifically, but for war-apologists in general. If you're the spokesman, so be it.
posted by mr.marx at 8:17 PM on July 22, 2005


war-apologists/administration apologists that is..

(not to steal your remark, mr.marx..)
posted by Balisong at 8:24 PM on July 22, 2005


Actually it's a fairly standard courtroom tactic

of dem slimy trial lawyers.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 8:41 PM on July 22, 2005


You mean to tell me the DoD didn't turn over incriminating photos of their people committing atrocities? Now there's a shocker.
posted by cedar at 8:48 PM on July 22, 2005


If I Had An Anus writes "of dem slimy trial lawyers."

Yeah, you know, the ones Republicans keep referring to when they talk about "tort reform"... at least until the irony hangs so heavy in the air it threatens to crush them.
posted by clevershark at 8:53 PM on July 22, 2005


Damn them. I want never to hear again about how we set some kind of fucking standard for democracy in this country, and if I could ask one thing: if you have nothing to hide, why are you hiding things? In my universe, blatant gaming to keep from revealing evidence is prima facie evidence of a crime. But of course, what do we expect from a regime of criminals. Go, Fitzgerald, go! (Perjury possibilities for Rove and Libby are page one above the fold in both the LA Times and WaPo tonight, so stick your supreme court justice up your ass, you thugs.)
posted by realcountrymusic at 8:54 PM on July 22, 2005


Let me throw some gas on the fires of our rage (via dKos): full article

The White House on Thursday threatened to veto a massive Senate bill for $442 billion in next year's defense programs if it moves to regulate the Pentagon's treatment of detainees or sets up a commission to investigate operations at Guantanamo Bay prison and elsewhere.
...
Possible measures included barring the holding of "ghost" detainees whose names are not disclosed, codifying a ban against cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, and using the Army manual as a basis for all interrogations.


Goddamned fuckers.
posted by MikeKD at 9:23 PM on July 22, 2005


I imagine that one of the things the DoD is not eager to reveal is the sodomizing of teenage Iraqi boys in the prison by guards. The New Yorker's Seymour Hirsh has been talking about those videotapes -- in which the boys are heard screaming -- for over a year. Let loose the dogs of war, indeed.

We are peering over the edge of a very high cliff, and too much has happened already to prevent going down. The reputation of America as a light of liberty and humanity to the world is being snuffed out in a single generation by a bunch of bullshitters in way over their heads.
posted by digaman at 9:27 PM on July 22, 2005


(Actually it's a fairly standard courtroom tactic) of dem slimy trial lawyers.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 8:41 PM PST on July 22 [!]


So now the Dems are just as worse as the Repub's. Where does that get us?

Fucked.
posted by Balisong at 9:30 PM on July 22, 2005


Balisong, I'm 47, and among the people I know my age and older, it's generally believed that this is the worst administration in our lifetimes by far.
posted by digaman at 9:45 PM on July 22, 2005


digaman, I'm a bit younger and know that this is most batshit crazy administration of all our lifetimes. Please let this Bush ridiculousness be the highwater mark.

I want my country back and I want to like all of my countrymen again. I want to believe in my country again. And I do not want a lobotomy.
posted by fenriq at 9:50 PM on July 22, 2005


a lobotomy? oh if only it were that easy.
even then there would be the chance, you might look up from drooling on the terrazzo floor, to see the maddness coming out of washington. boy that would suck, to be docile as a stoned chicken, and still able to see whats wrong.
posted by nola at 10:16 PM on July 22, 2005


Digaman, at least your generation wasn't afraid to fight. Not only is this administration one of the worst in U.S. history, but the electorate are some of the most apathetic, to boot. The two probably go hand-in-hand.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:17 PM on July 22, 2005


but the electorate are some of the most apathetic, to boot.

Tell that to the people protesting in the streets of SF, Boston, NYC, and all the other places. I think the claim of "worst administration ever" is shortsighted and just plain lacking in perspective, but I'm not going to fight that. But to say that the electorate is apathetic despite large and plentiful protests, the most money ever put into politics, and the amount of message traffic online is just plain wrong. The alternative explanation, which would of course clash with your vision of everybody hating Bush, is that some of the active electorate actually supports the administration's policies and priorities in general (even if not every particular act). You can argue all you want about whether they're right or wrong, but that might explain some things.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 10:59 PM on July 22, 2005


realcountrymusic:
if you have nothing to hide, why are you hiding things?. In my universe, blatant gaming to keep from revealing evidence is prima facie evidence of a crime.

In this instance, yes, the behaviour is suspicious, since the pentagon is government rather than an individual, and thus has no right to privacy, and no national secrets are on the line (well, ok, there are plenty of shameful national secrets on the line, but they're not the type that it is legimate to keep secret from the people).

But where individuals are concerned, it is false to think "If you've got nothing to hide then why are you hiding things". It's an illegimate concept, since it strips everyone of their privacy - you're either a person stripped of your privacy whenever any questions arise, or (if you don't answer becaus it's a private matter) clearly a criminal. Privacy should never be viewed as criminal, or as evidence of guilt.

/Just cautioning against too broad a use. Just In Case :-)
posted by -harlequin- at 11:00 PM on July 22, 2005


the devildancedlightly:
I think the claim of "worst administration ever" is shortsighted and just plain lacking in perspective

I know you don't want to debate this, so let's not, but I am very curious as to what administrations you have in mind that you think come close or exceed the track record of this one? Are you thinking way back a century or more, or are you thinking that more recent administration(s)?

Do you personally remember them?

I imagine McCarthyism is up there, though that was not in my lifetime, and I'm under the vague impression that the head of that (McCarthy) wasn't executive, so it probably doesn't count.
posted by -harlequin- at 11:09 PM on July 22, 2005


Guys, they can't turn over the photos because they already sold the rights to the next faces of death movie! Hey, every little bit helps when your getting ripped off by Halberton.
posted by jeffburdges at 11:27 PM on July 22, 2005


I think the claim of "worst administration ever" is shortsighted and just plain lacking in perspective

devildancedlightly, I remember the Nixon administration very clearly and it wasn't as bad as this... please point us to the "worst administration", thanks...
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:33 PM on July 22, 2005


Nixon sucked. Regan sucked. Clinton sucked. W sucks. lupus really, really sucks.
posted by bardic at 11:54 PM on July 22, 2005


Look, it's fairly simple. Either a war is justified or it isn't. Either the cause is so necessary that you are willing to support it, even though it will most likely result in the commission of atrocities. If you support this war, you must be willing to say, this war was so necessary, that I am willing to accept any and all unpleasant activities commited in the name of this war as of lesser moral import than the successful execution of the stated purpose of the war.


War is hell, and if you support a war, you accept and recognize the hell of war.

I've made this point in some of our threads about torture. There are some rare moments when you must abrogate morality and do something wrong. Those moments are also moments when the good you are doing is worth the evil that has been comitted. In the case of torture, I would torture someone who could stop a nuke from detonating in manhattan. I would also voluntarily accept the punishment for violating the law, as well as accept the moral responsibility for torturing that person.

The same goes for a war. If it is worth fighting, it is worth accepting public responsibility for all the contemptuous conditions war creates.
posted by Freen at 11:55 PM on July 22, 2005


Clinton sucked? Wrong way around, dude.
posted by Freen at 11:59 PM on July 22, 2005


Some are capable of much, and totally screw the pooch (ie my friend Clinton.) Some are capable of little, and fuck up the world, but at least we don't have the luxury of damning them with faint praise.
posted by bardic at 12:22 AM on July 23, 2005


/ Go Ivy League!
posted by bardic at 12:27 AM on July 23, 2005


When belief in any topical backstory more complicated than three soundbites in content in makes you de facto a dreaded 'conspiracy theorist', I only have one question:

"How's Paris Hilton's clitoris doing this week?"

"Oh, I understand it's in talks with the Chinese to..."

...and so forth.

My plain, humble vote is for an exchange of national anthems: Star Spangled Banner traded in for AC/DC's Highway to Hell.

A populist move, wouldn't you say?
posted by objet at 1:11 AM on July 23, 2005


Yes, objet, sadly.
posted by wsg at 1:58 AM on July 23, 2005


I could get behind that, objet.
posted by squirrel at 2:00 AM on July 23, 2005


The same goes for a war. If it is worth fighting, it is worth accepting public responsibility for all the contemptuous conditions war creates.

False. Absolutely completely utterly false. The U.S. military has standards of conduct. What happened at Abu & Gitmo are crimes even by American rules of war.
posted by srboisvert at 4:31 AM on July 23, 2005


But to say that the electorate is apathetic despite large and plentiful protests, the most money ever put into politics, and the amount of message traffic online is just plain wrong.

There are two kinds of mechanics.

The first likes to look at the car, diagnose the problem, run it through a barrage of tests, talk to other mechanics to get second opinions, buy a few shop manuals to read over, clean the engine bay in advance, purchase a few new tools just to make sure...

The second likes to fix the fucking problem.

The alternative explanation, which would of course clash with your vision of everybody hating Bush

Say, what are you talking about? Are you trying to tell me what I'm thinking? Do you know me? You got some shiny brass balls there, mister. Hey, if you know me so well, tell me what number I'm thinking of? Wrong. I wasn't thinking of a number at all. I was thinking, "thedevildancedlightly is a fucking idiot."

I know everyone in this country doesn't hate Bush. I used to live in Nebraska for chrissake. I have looked into the eyes of the enemy. You're living in a pretty little bubble (I'm currently living in one on the other side of the country). This isn't reality. Reality is a bunch of old racist morons playing Keno drinking Miller at the local bar in town (population: 1000) using words like towel-heads in their political "debates" while the television plays maybe five seconds of whatever Giant Protest™ happened that day, to which the patrons will happily summarize in their heads as "fucking commies" (if any thought at all is given).
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:47 AM on July 23, 2005


lupus_yonderboy that was not nice. Just for this thread I will argue the GOP side.

Release of these photos will serve no purpose other than to further inflame the terrorists and will likely lead to more attacks upon and deaths of American troops. The intention of the people asking for these photos - almost purely to use them to inflame the voters against the administration. They likely also get off on seeing naked Iraqis and torture. They are too stupid to realize the harm they will cause to their own country. Traitors.

[posting as a devil's advocate for the GOPl]
posted by caddis at 6:36 AM on July 23, 2005


It's an illegimate concept, since it strips everyone of their privacy

And yet it is the cornerstone of common sense judgments of guilt and innocence, applied easily when a 6 year old hides the broken pieces of a cookie jar and pretends not to know where the jar went. And every lawyer knows that when one's client pleads the 5th, the jury is going to suspect something is being hidden. I understand the point you make, and believe in the principle of an (individual) right to privacy (but not a right to obstruct justice). But as you say, this is the government hiding the truth from the people who give it what little legitimacy it still has. The government has no expectation of privacy when it has committed war crimes in our name, not even, pace caddis' recitation of the GOP national security rationale, if it hurts out military efforts. Atrocities happen in war. The lesson of 20th century history is that unless the agents of such atrocities are held to public account, any "victory" gained thereby is morally and politically illegitimate.

These guys, for all their posturing, have *fucked up the war.* It was the wrong war, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons, in the wrong place. But once they started fighting it, they had a duty to fight by international rules of war, to put the right number of troops on the ground, and to make a serious effort to win the peace as well as the battles. This is why I said, upthread, that smart conservatives should be outraged by this administration too. If you *supported* the war, and even if you continue to support it despite all the evidence that a) the premises under which we engaged Iraq were false and presented as knwoing lies to the American people and the world community and b) these fuckers are just plain incompetent at running a war, or else benefit from the chaos and tragedy that has ensued, you must be nuts, or just like death and destruction.

Back-filling rationalizations abound. Saddam was bad. Iraqis lived in terror under Saddam. A lot of them (especially Kurds and Shi'ites) are glad we went in. Blah blah. While true, these are not reasons the United States is allowed to go to war under our constitution, and certainly not without a mandate from the international community to intervene in a human rights disaster (a la Kosovo). Many conservatives protested the Kosovo intervention on precisely these grounds, by the way, but are silent now. Suddenly, they are human rights advocates at the expense of US constitutional limits on warmaking. It simply amazes me that the american media and people just shrug sheepishly in the face of the biggest, most obvious LIE of our times -- that Saddam posed any imminent or long-term threat to US security with his "WMDs."

This is why I laugh at 'strict constructionist' bullshit from partisans on the right discussing the judiciary. Under any "strict constructionist" reading of the constitution, this administration has committed treason. The only way forward is to hold them to account for every atrocity committed in the name of our country, every lie they have told the world, every cover-up they have subsequently engaged in. Yes, the intention of many of us who want these photos is to inflame voters against the administration. If the truth can accomplish that, so much the better. Or do we honestly want a government that believes it is better to lie to the people, for their own good, and to commit gross human rights violations in our collective names? This, dear King George, is what democracy fucking looks like. If it's good for Iraq (which remains to be seen, since what they've had so far is hardly a democratic experiment, and if it were, there would be civil war in the streets of the Green Zone and the US would be out by popular demand) it's damn well good for the United States of America. I don't want Father Knows Best for president. And before someone prattles on about what a majority of "ordinary" Americans might want, I remind us all that Bush "won" the (wildly gamed) election in 2004 by less than a couple of million votes out of over 100 million votes. And he is now in the low 40s on every poll. He has no mandate, and plenty, and probably a majority now, of Americans think this shit has in fact gone too far.
posted by realcountrymusic at 6:59 AM on July 23, 2005


The White House on Thursday threatened to veto a massive Senate bill for $442 billion in next year's defense programs if it moves to regulate the Pentagon's treatment of detainees or sets up a commission to investigate operations at Guantanamo Bay prison and elsewhere.

Very slowly for the GOP supporters who might be slow readers. If anybody attempts to investigate the rapes and child-sodomizing at US-run prisons, President Bush will defund our military while at war.

From over at the comments on Kos: That this man would even consider to hold up national defense resources in an attempt to prevent further investigation of the already well-documented abuses that have occurred in these camps is incredible. Does he really think that he can prevent decent people from looking into these troubling matters by withholding funds necessary for the safety of our men and women in the armed forces? and also: Dem needs to point out that the Republicans are "objectively pro-child sodomy" and "pro-Rape" and then describe the acts in all their lurid detail into the congressional record. Lets hang the "child sodomy-good" moniker on them for the next 50 years.
posted by zaelic at 7:11 AM on July 23, 2005


This isn't about protecting the administration, this is about protecting FREEDOM. Only the conspiracy theory wackos believe otherwise. These terrorists at Gitmo seek to hurt or kill innocent civilians in their fight against our freedom. We shouldn't be coddling them.

[posting as a devil's advocate for the GOP]
posted by caddis at 7:32 AM on July 23, 2005


[posting as a devils advocate against the GOP:]

We don't even know what those Gitmo prisoners did to get locked up - and we won't because the Bush Dept. of Defense doesn't like the precident of an informed US public.

Women raped and children sodomized at Abu Ghraib is not Gitmo.

[*returns to real self, watches caddis to do same*]
posted by zaelic at 7:37 AM on July 23, 2005


A few bad soldiers committed those acts and they are currently being prosecuted. The mere fact that some in the administration pushed for increased stress to be applied to the prisoners to encourage cooperation does not mean that the administration condoned torture.

[posting as a devil's advocate for the GOP]

[GOP talking points make this so easy - a computer could be programmed to spit this stuff out]
posted by caddis at 7:41 AM on July 23, 2005


We're lying to you. Get used to it. We like being in power. Screw you. And just try to stop us.

[posting as a devil's advocate for the administration]

I've had it. I won't even talk to anyone I know who claims to support this administration any longer, including a sibling. How could anyone claim to believe in conservative or republican principles and look the other way at what is going on here? A mighty judgment day will come, I hope. Until then. if you still support these people, bite me.
posted by realcountrymusic at 7:51 AM on July 23, 2005


I, for one, welcome our new lying, traitorous, corrupt, and powerful GOP overlords!

[runs... hides...]
posted by zaelic at 7:57 AM on July 23, 2005


i can't believe them...and zaelic, my jaw dropped at that. they really are traitorous, and corrupt doesn't begin to describe it.

Will this go to the Supremes, with new Justice "the Govt. is always right" Roberts?
posted by amberglow at 8:01 AM on July 23, 2005


Amberglow: I've got to see my jaw therapist this afternoon as well.

But rats backed into a corner - Iraq, Rove, London, Abu Ghraib, Sharm El-Sheik - tend to bite without thinking. Please, God, let there be Democrats with an IQ of over 70 in the next election...

Think I'll have that little drinkie now...
posted by zaelic at 8:24 AM on July 23, 2005


Will this go to the Supremes, with new Justice "the Govt. is always right" Roberts?

Bingo. I am pissed, but not surprised, that no one seems to be commenting on the obvious urgency for the admin of getting a new SCOTUS justice online and approved , which is why they picked someone who has a clear path to senate approval when ordinarily, they relish a rigged fight. They know they will be needing to stop a lot of crap at the supreme court level. Hey, it worked in 2000. I just hope Fitzgerald's indictments come down well before Roberts is approved and installed. Damn, am I in a rage this morning. I think Godwin's Law has just been suspended. This administration really does act like a bunch of Nazis. More Goebbels than Hitler, and more 1938 than 1943, but the damn shoe fits. Fuck Godwin.
posted by realcountrymusic at 8:26 AM on July 23, 2005


It really is the 30s--in so many ways. But how can we stop it, besides making sure that all the unhappy Republicans and other Americans go and vote their asses out of Congress in 06, and the WH in 08? (if we even have an 08 election, that is.)
posted by amberglow at 8:29 AM on July 23, 2005


if we even have an 08 election, that is

Well, if the White House can give the finger to a court order to hand over the photo evidence, and then threaten to defund and harm our troops in Iraq if anybody uses our democratic system to force them, well, I'd say that your democracy has picked up some kind of sickness that aspirin just ain't gonna cure. And your fears about '08 are not just paranoia.
posted by zaelic at 8:37 AM on July 23, 2005


Why do we need to suppress the photos and videos if it was just the actions of a few bad apples and the so-called abuse was really nothing worse than average fraternity hazing?

The White House on Thursday threatened to veto a massive Senate bill for $442 billion in next year's defense programs if it moves to regulate the Pentagon's treatment of detainees or sets up a commission to investigate operations at Guantanamo Bay prison and elsewhere.

The amendments on the treatment of detainees are being proposed by Republican senators, John McCain and Lindsey Graham.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:44 AM on July 23, 2005


oh MikeKD had linked to it above too--sorry for missing it, Mike, and thanks.
posted by amberglow at 8:51 AM on July 23, 2005


Republican senators, John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

Who will promptly retreat when challenged by the white house (no doubt the WH has personal dirt on each of them with which to enforce the party line) . . . Fuck McCain and Graham. Threading the needle is no longer the issue. Turning it around and sticking it back in the eye of the administration is our only hope. Or in the words of Our Fearful Leader, you're either with the American constitution or against it.
posted by realcountrymusic at 8:52 AM on July 23, 2005


The amendments on the treatment of detainees are being proposed by Republican senators, John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

Well, comparing Washington today to the Washington of Watergate era, Carl Bernstein said on the Daily show the other night: "The other real difference in Washington today is that Nixon was ultimately pushed out of office by Republicans. Republicans today will not separate from their president on important issues, on issues of conscience. And that's a big difference."

But some Republicans, like McCain, have that conscience weakness... Once the GOP's wall of Republican support cracks under the wight of Rove and Abu Graib, all hell will break loose. That would explain the radical nature of the White House threat to veto defense funding if any investighation is pursued.
posted by zaelic at 9:01 AM on July 23, 2005


The reputation of America as a light of liberty and humanity to the world is being snuffed out in a single generation by a bunch of bullshitters in way over their heads.

i do not disagree, however, if you consider for a moment the possibility that the "reputation of America as a light of liberty and humanity to the world" has heretofore existed only in the minds of americans, and is the product of a self-produced reality fed via movies and television into the minds of youngsters for decades, you may begin to get your arms around the whole picture.
posted by quonsar at 9:09 AM on July 23, 2005


Why are they allowed to act like dictators? Where are our checks and balances? Why can they ignore Judge's orders? What are the options now?
posted by amberglow at 9:34 AM on July 23, 2005


What are the options now?
posted by matteo at 10:07 AM on July 23, 2005


"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." --Thomas Jefferson.
posted by hank at 10:09 AM on July 23, 2005


and no, quonsar, it hasn't only "heretofore existed only in the minds of americans, and is the product of a self-produced reality fed via movies and television into the minds of youngsters for decades". it's not true. your country is a very impressive experiment -- with a huge potential to do bad things, but an equally impressive ability to create and implement progressive policy, to fix what's wrong. from Lincoln to FDR, from Truman's desegregation of the Armed Forces to LBJ's Civil Rights Act.
it's an ability to mend what's wrong with your own country that so many people around the world rightly admire
posted by matteo at 10:13 AM on July 23, 2005


I could go on for EB-style loooooooooooong paragraphs, q. but you get my meaning. in your less cynical, blackened-heart moments, you know it, too
posted by matteo at 10:15 AM on July 23, 2005



posted by quonsar at 10:37 AM on July 23, 2005


exactly!

;)
posted by matteo at 10:46 AM on July 23, 2005


yeah, we are very good at waving the flag. lately, not so good at anything else.
posted by amberglow at 10:51 AM on July 23, 2005


Wht could possibly be wrong with seeing photos of well-fed detainees living in the tropics with everyhing they could possibly want, including lemon-baked fish and rice pilaf?
posted by kirkaracha at 10:58 AM on July 23, 2005


and a hair curler on high shoved up someone's ass while soldiers pose for trophy pictures.
posted by Balisong at 11:01 AM on July 23, 2005


The White House on Thursday threatened to veto a massive Senate bill for $442 billion in next year's defense programs if it moves to regulate the Pentagon's treatment of detainees or sets up a commission to investigate operations at Guantanamo Bay prison and elsewhere.

I flat-out cannot believe this. And we can't blame just Bush--where are the Dems and their outrage? Shouldn't they be holding press conferences and running around in circles screaming or something? And the military bigwigs--shouldn't they be signing up in droves to impeach the CIC?

What is wrong with everybody???
posted by leftcoastbob at 11:07 AM on July 23, 2005


For those of you saying "worst admin ever", I'm certainly not going to disagree with you, but keep in mind that it only finally appears that way to us. A lot of this strife has had roots in brutish conduct going back as far as the eye can see. I would wager that we're only more aware of it now.
posted by dreamsign at 11:53 AM on July 23, 2005


matteo, I was thinking more along the lines of...


posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:35 PM on July 23, 2005


sez digaman, and I agree "this is the worst administration in our lifetimes by far"
posted by ahimsakid at 9:05 PM on July 23, 2005


Pentagon Blocks Release of Abu Ghraib Images: Here's Why (E&P)--
...One clue: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Congress last year, after viewing a large cache of unreleased images: "I mean, I looked at them last night, and they're hard to believe.” They show acts "that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhumane," he added.

A Republican Senator suggested the same day they contained scenes of “rape and murder.” No wonder Rumsfeld commented then, "If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse." ...

posted by amberglow at 9:38 PM on July 23, 2005


-therefore, nothing for you to see, go back to shopping!

These are not the pictures you are looking for.

/force
posted by Balisong at 9:43 PM on July 23, 2005


therefore, nothing for you to see, go back to shopping!

Exactly, as Juvenal said in the 1st. Century A.D.: Give them "bread and circuses!"

But, today it might as well be "Give them Paris Hilton and Jessica Simpson.

Nothing going on here. Move along.
posted by ericb at 10:14 PM on July 23, 2005


Didn't we used to have an Opposition Party in this country? Where are they these days?
posted by leftcoastbob at 12:36 PM on July 24, 2005


and since when is it optional to comply with a judge's order?
posted by amberglow at 1:05 PM on July 24, 2005


Call the veto bluff.

Write your Congressperson. Make noise.

It's not me or my Congressperson punishing the rank and file of the armed services just because I'm outed for war crimes.

It's the guy in the Oval Office who is threatening to sign a veto...which is tantamount to siging death sentences for many of our troops.

W is a guy that apparently knows a lot about vindictive behaviour without bounds...knows a lot about covering up his crimes (cocaine, AWOL, etc.) with misdirection, and a lot about signing death sentences as Gov. of Texas.

But I really didn't think he'd go this far. If it were a "few bad apples" it's just a court marshal situation.

It's obviously more that that. This must go to the top. W is desperate.

W alone is undermining our fighting forces if he vetoes the nearly half-trillion dollar war support bill. He alone is committing sedition because his cowardly administration may be deeply guilty of war crimes and he's scared he and his administration may finally be nailed for murder.

This is a man willling to take world down with him if he's brought to task for crimes against humanity.

We have a duty to call the veto bluff. We have a duty to demand the truth.

And as said above, begin the process to fix our American system.
posted by Dunvegan at 2:39 PM on July 24, 2005


...The rape of little boys. Well God bless America. I'm so damned proud of my country right now, I could just, well, rape a little boy.

Yeah, I sure wouldn't want to know that my government was sanctioning, and then engaging in a cover-up, of those kind of actions. After all, the little boys who are being raped might be humiliated if we intervened and stopped them from being raped. ...

posted by amberglow at 8:19 PM on July 24, 2005


Civil_Disobedient, I think this is a little closer to the reality, metaphor-wise, even if rather more depressing in terms of survivability.



"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
posted by trigonometry at 10:12 AM on July 25, 2005


The White House on Thursday threatened to veto a massive Senate bill for $442 billion

A bluff. And a stupid bluff. That would be a gaily-wrapped christmas present of a soundbite to the Democrats -- "They're vetoing military funding during a war!!" and they will never, ever follow through on it.
posted by ook at 10:45 AM on July 25, 2005


(though on reflection, even the threat of a veto makes just as good a soundbite, yet nobody seems to be using it.... what happened to the not-insane wing of our government? Did they all go on vacation at the same time?)
posted by ook at 10:57 AM on July 25, 2005


I understand the stalling tactics, but do they not realize their path is ultimately suicidal?
I’m going to have to go ahead and be outraged...more.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:07 AM on July 25, 2005


Me too... Hell, Outrage all Around!
posted by Balisong at 4:03 PM on July 25, 2005


Update from the ACLU:
The Defense Department has filed heavily redacted papers in a further attempt to suppress photographs and videos that depict the abuse of prisoners held at Abu Ghraib
The ACLU release has links to the redacted papers. There's a hearing on August 15.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:22 PM on July 29, 2005


« Older Explosions rock Sharm el-Sheik...  |  To witness the decline of the ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments