Justice Department Wants Abuse Photos Blocked

[sabra]

Source: AP

Retired Gen. Antonio Taguba, Who Led Abu Ghraib Prisoner Abuse Probe, Agrees Photos Should Not Be Released

LONDON (AP) ―

A former U.S. general said graphic images of rape and torture are among the photos of Iraqi prisoner abuse that President Barack Obama's administration does not want released.

The administration asked a federal court, it was revealed Thursday, to cancel its decision ordering the release of disturbing images of detainee abuse.

The request comes in a letter filed to a federal appeals court in New York. The letter cites two partially secret statements from top U.S. generals David Petraeus and Ray Odierno.

The Obama administration had planned to release the photos until the president reversed the decision, saying their release would endanger U.S. troops serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Bush administration had made similar arguments and lost. The new filing says releasing the photos would pose clear and grave risks of inciting violence and riots.

Read more: http://cbs13.com/national/abu.ghraib.photos.2.1022121.html

[T Wolf]

1. By all means - please hide the truth President Obama and protect our brave

torturers and rapists in uniform.

After all, they are such heroes that a minor "indiscretion" should be ignored.

[saigon68]

24. Holder = a dog scratching the dirt to cover up his dung

Hey Eric-- Nice Profile in Courage.

As he swiftly raids some California Cannabis Collective.

Nice Straw Man eh?

[bullimiami]

2. by not bringing the truth out in the open and dealing with it the acts taint not only

the monsters who devised and executed them but the entire military, government and intelligence community.

the world knows it happened. it makes us all complicit by covering it up.

[Igel]

16. However,

as a previous post amply demonstrates, showing them would also taint the entire military, government, and intelligence community.

They can't distinguish between those who do such things and everybody else: Communalism is rooted in many honor-based societies and generally not considered to be a very Western trait, but those doing the considering are simply wrong. It tends to infect partisan thinkers to a very great extent, and that's simply a human trait; communalism doesn't have to apply to clans and tribes (in the strict sense) to be communalism.

[No Elephants]

25. Not buying it. But, if showing them taints the community and concealing them also taints

the community, it's no brainer: Show them.

[lamp_shade]

3. Good. Releasing those photos scares the bejeezus out of me.

[Tempest]

6. Which is why they should be released

Just like the German people were forced to confront the evils of a government they supported, so should Americans.

[24601]

17. As I recall, after WWII the Germans didn't lead any parade to

publicize the Holocaust. As the vanquished, they didn't have much say in the matter. By the time they were willing to face it, the war was long over and their soldiers weren't in harms way.

Remember 1994? Go ahead and give voters a wedge issue - especially one that becomes Obama's "Black Hawk Down." President Obama is now responsible for the decisions affecting lives of our military and he has made it clear we are in Afghanistan for the long haul. And putting him on the defensive on the National Security Front affects his influence across the political board. Want to give up on health care & energy - just force him into corner where he fights daily on military issues.

[pleah]

21. We wouldn't be in Afghanistan if it weren't for the pipeline and poppies. n/t

[mbperrin]

26. Easy call to get soldiers out of harm's way - put them on planes and boats this

afternoon, bring 'em home, prosecute the offenders with all evidence available. Execute the capital offenders, imprison the rest.

What a shame it would be if the American military shrank in size and glamor if we didn't "need" them killing mostly brown folks for theatrical purposes, and if the public knew what sorts of crimes are being committed in their names.

Just a cryin' shame.....

[No Elephants]

29. Nazi Germany during WWII is not the standard to use for our conduct. And the WOT is never-

ending, no matter what name we decide to give to it. Moreover, our troops will always be somewhere. So waiting for some non-existent conventional war to end and all our troops to be safe at home (assuming any of us are safe at home) is simply not an option.

Besides, Obama has not led any parade. Bush was sued and the suit has fallen to Obama-Holder. If Obama would have released the photos from the jump, it would have been a non-issue. It's his refusal tha has given the issue legs.

And what on earth do health care and energy have to do with this? Are you trying to imply that we have a President who is going to get paralyzed in ever other area if his fiat on photos gets criticized at DU? Or anywhere else, for that matter? Good grief. If that's the extent of his abilities, I agree: forget seeking the photos and just seek impeachment. Someone who is that feeble should not be President. However, I do not believe Obama is that feeble, so I am seeking release of the photos. And, I believe their release will have zero effect on the troops anyway.

[frylock]

13. and the home of the brave

[No Elephants]

27. Actions should be not be based upon irrational fear. The rest of the world already

knows more about those photos than we do and they suspect more. Anyone who is going to get violent against our troops or us because of what those photos show is not waiting for photographic evidence anyway. The government's rationale has been ludicrous.

[TheWatcher]

39. Spoken like a "Good American"

Your inability to handle The Truth doesn't mean it should stay hidden.

[fascisthunter]

4. Protect Our Image from Americans

because the rest of the World already knows... and by doing so, the public will not be demanding that Obama hold anyone accountable

[earcandle]

5. tar and pitchforks will be meeting those responsible who dare to leave their homes.

I imagine.  Might be a good thing.  No one will do it again. 

[Locrian]

7. sooooo

The pics are SO horrific that they cannot be released. BUT we are not investigating because, ummm, errr, because?

WTF is WRONG with this picture???!!

[No Elephants]

28. Because we've decided to look only forward. Every criminal's dream. Heck, why

ever punish anyone for any crime? Waste of time and money that we could be spending on more war.

[truthisfreedom]

8. What a conundrum.

Horrifying nightmarish situation.

[Soylent Brice]

9. wait wait wait WAIT

okay, let's go through this one more time:

Obama says no to releasing pictures, threat to our troops, etc.

then taguba says the pics are of rape amongst other things.

then the Pentagon says the photos don't really show rape and the like.

so, NOW we see the DOJ actually following through with blocking photos of torture and rape at the hands of american soldiers, torture and rape mind you that the Pentagon just said doesn't exist.

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[No Elephants]

30. Yup, through the looking glass, down the rabbit hole. America in Wonderland.

[santamargarita]

10. Some photos have been leaked already...

just wait :popcorn:

[No Elephants]

31. Really? Every single photo I have seen so far is from the Abu Ghraib batch of years ago.

[Wednesdays]

11. K&R

:kick:

[ArcticFox]

12. If the PICTURES are so bad . . .

Then why aren't people being EXECUTED for the CRIMES they show?

There is no logic. I'm sorry, but you can't just go into a foreign country and do this kind of thing to people who aren't even your citizens. There is no justice.

Why aren't they convening trials right now in the Hague? It's clear the U.S.A. won't be doing anything about these crimes against humanity. Would it take our overthrow by a foreign power (as it did with Germany after WWII) to see justice done? I certainly hope it doesn't come to that.

[Triana]

14. ALL good questions. I don't care about the pictures. It's not about the pictures..

...it's about the CRIMES that were committed and the DAMAGE that was done to our country and our NATIONAL SECURITY. :mad:

[24601]

18. Because execution requires conviction in a capital case *

You don't really believe Obama wants to lead DoD down the path to more UCMJ death penalty cases do you? Just the legacy he wants - the Death Penalty President, blazing the way for successors who might build on the momentum.

* Isn't that what one of the USSC cases last year was about - Death penaly for rape of a child overturned when the child survived. (Kennedy v. Louisiana)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/washington/26scotuscnd.html
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/us-supreme-court-denies-rehearing-kennedy-v-louisiana-opinion

[ArcticFox]

35. Why would you be against capital punishment?

People have DIED in our detention. It wasn't just several cases of people being roughed up. This was a concerted effort to mutilate and terrorize with reckless disregard for the life of individual captives.

Further, the crime of treason is punishable by death. One definition of treason from dictionary.com is "the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery." Violating United States and international law by one sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States should qualify as treason.

Before we start worrying about whether someone else might try to have more capital punishment due to Obama's use of it, why not worry about why Obama is not rolling back indefinite detention, warrantless wiretapping, "renditions," military operations in Afganistan, insane payouts to bankers who have destroyed our entire economic system over the years, etc. etc. etc.

[24601]

36. I'm not necessarily against capital punishment - mend it, don't

end it and it depends on the case. I've got no qualms against executing people who kill kids. Anybody think Tim McVeigh should have been rehab'd? Perhaps introducing candidates in his trailer and serving on local boards.

Now, about Treason - while dictionaries are nice, for the USA anyway, the Constitution defines Treason . So as much as I'd prefer Treason include that asshole who cut me off in traffic, I'm limited to the Article III, Section Definition: Section 3.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies,
giving them aid and comfort."

Alas, nothing about traffic or cutting me off....

* It wasn't always just this way. John Brown, hanged for the Harpers Ferry Armory raid, was convicted of Treason, but against Virginia, not the United States. Today, Treason against a state would be a non-starter.

Also, without a declaration of war from congress, who are these "enemies"?

[No Elephants]

32. It would be the International Criminal Court, to which America has never consented. Of course,

Obama could consent to its jurisdiction in this instance, or a member state could petition. What are the odds, though--especially if we don't keep up whatever pressure we can exert?

I am almost as ashamed of my country for refusing to prosecute, as required by the United Nationa Convention Against Torture (to which we DID become party in 1988), as I am for the original wrongs. Both events are in total disregard of the rule of law.

[Amonester]

37. Yeah, bush&co accused saddam of torturing people...

I bet his regime never raped anyone... and look what they've got invaded and massacred for (for oil profits).

Maybe it's a good thing the US hasn't got a billion barrels of light crude untapped... :sarcasm:

[pleah]

15. O.F.F.S.! Release the photos and start the prosecutions!

OUR SOLDIERS ARE ALREADY IN HARMS WAY. They are already facing death every day. It can't get any worse.

[24601]

19. I disagree that it can't get worse.

It is disingenuous to postulate, as some have, that the Abu Ghraib photos inflamed the Islamic world and aided Al Qaeda during Bush, but that during Obama, the effect would be different. Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Al Qaeda hastn't turned kindler and gentler just because Obama took office.

[pleah]

22. Then explain why you disagree,

and stop throwing shit at me.


The people over there are "inflamed" because we are over there killing men, women and children and torturing people for oil and control of the middle east.

[No Elephants]

33. First, where is the proof that releasing the Abu Ghraib photos inflamed the

Islamic world? Our Middle East policies before and after 911 inflamed it, including how we actually treated all Iraqis, whether in Abu Ghraib or in Basra. However, where is the proof that one single thing happened solely because the Abu Ghraib photos got released? So, let's start with that.

Oh, and btw, Al Qaeda is never going to hate us more, nor is it ever going to turn kinder and gentler, whether or not photos are released. And they already know more than we do because they've talked to people released from those prisons. Hearing the stories is not going to make them hurt anyone, but seeing photos will turn a non-violent person violent?

After all these years that we've been

favoring and arming Israel (rightly or wrongly),

Supporting dictators, like the Shah of Iran and Saddam (we were for him before we were against him--ditto Bin Laden)

bombing Afghanistan

occupying Iraq

and otherwise killing their fellow Muslims,

torturing their fellow Muslims

refusing to prosecute the tortuers

seeing some photos are suddenly make all the difference as to whether some Iraqi or Afghan gets violent or not?

[24601]

38. I wasn't making the claim but pointing out that many have

for example:

"By all admissions, the top-security prison has served as a powerful recruiting tool for young jihadis willing to take up arms against America."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4168527, #59

or April 2005 Testimony by Wes Clark

"The prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib has provided our enemies with a propaganda bonanza resulting in a recruiting windfall in Iraq and throughout the Arab world."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3436080


My point is that when Bush was in charge, there was a constant mantra that the abuse was helping recruit fighters against the USA. Why wouldn't release of the photos further help jihadi recruitment? They aren't going to say, "Don't fight the Americans now boys, Obama has taken over the Presidency."

The consistency of ground truth doesn't change based on who sits in the Oval Office.

[The abyss]

20. This entire debate is nothing more than a "shell game"

We need enemies. No thinking outside of the prepared box allowed.

This article probably puts it together better than anything else.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ARTICLE5/index.html?q=ARTICLE5/index.html

[defendandprotect]

23. Taguba is wrong on this - so is DOJ -- the longer we harbor and protect war criminals

and war crimes, the worse the situation will be for our soldiers--

First, bring the soldiers home -- why in the hell haven't we stopped these wars.

These wars which are now Democratic/Obama wars????

Release the photos and let's hope that US citizens will rise up and demand a full

account -- prosecutions -- and a permanent stop to all of this garbage.

Statements from Obama to our military -- which should have happened long ago -- that

all of this is to stop and that all whistleblowers will be protected.

Obama's silence and assistance in this coverup is also criminal!

[No Elephants]

34. Not only our troops. Hello, we're in harm's way, too. 911 proved that.

[and-justice-for-all]

40. Fuck that! We need to see those..nt