Glen Greenwald's question to people defending Obama's position on torture photos

[slipslidingaway]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/13/photos/index.html

"...(5) For all of you defend-Obama-at-all-cost cheerleaders who are about to descend into my comment section and other online venues to explain how Obama did the right thing because of National Security, I have this question: if you actually want to argue that concealing these photographs is the right thing to do, then you must have been criticizing Obama when, two weeks ago, he announced that he would release them. Otherwise, it's pretty clear that you don't have any actual beliefs other than: "I support what Obama does because it's Obama who does it." So for those arguing today that concealing these photographs is the right thing to do: were you criticizing Obama two weeks ago for announcing he would release these photographs?"


...As Judge Hellerstein wrote in rejecting the Bush argument -- now the Obama argument -- that disclosure would jeopradize the troops: "the freedoms that we champion are as important to our success in Iraq and Afghanistan as the guns and missiles with which our troops are armed."

[BlooInBloo]

1. lol!

I happen to agree with Greenwald on the underlying issue, but it's funny watching obamawhiners be proactively defensive.

[billyoc]

2. Fun!

:rofl:

[ZombieHorde]

3. Interesting point, I don't recall any outrage here on DU when he said he would release the photos.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/23/Obama-to-release-interrogation-photos/UPI-94901240542264/">Obama to release interrogation photos

[stillcool]

6. Why would there be?

I know people on the tv have problems with this stuff getting released, but I don't know anyone who buys that this argument is the whole story. I certainly don't. Nor do I think these photos will not be released. Why is it that one can not disagree with the action, but still ponder the reasoning?

[ZombieHorde]

10. If so many DUers were strongly against releasing the photos, then some of them would have said so.

but I don't know anyone who buys that this argument is the whole story.

Which argument are you referring to?

Why is it that one can not disagree with the action, but still ponder the reasoning?

Is this an intentional double negative?

Sorry, I am having a hard time understanding your post.

[stillcool]

13. I'm referring to the argument..

of putting the troops in harms way. It is a convenient, palatable defense. I disagree with the action..as in, I believe it was wrong not to release these photos. Sorry it's so hard to understand that I might question the reasoning or wonder what the reversal is really about. Nothing is black and white in my world, there is always cause and effect. I wish I lived in a less complicated world, where motives are not questioned, and actions are always what they seem. It must be nice.

[ZombieHorde]

14. The syntax and vague langauge is what I found to be confusing.

Nothing is black and white in my world

Then what do you call black or white crayons? (sorry, couldn't resist)

I wish I lived in a less complicated world, where motives are not questioned, and actions are always what they seem.

Who do you think is failing to question motives?

[stillcool]

22. I haven't read much..

at all about what the motives might be..only that Obama cheerleaders can't defend the Presidents flip-flop. Ah..who cares? It's all a game, recreation, entertainment. How many people care enough to put in the very little effort to contact their representatives, about this or anything else?

[ZombieHorde]

25. "How many people care enough"

Good point.

[Marr]

20. Why assume the cause is any different from the previous president's cause?

That is, CYA. The establishment seems not to want to deal with this issue, as so many of them were complicit in it's creation.

Like you, I suspect that the line about these photos 'putting our troops in harm's way' isn't the whole story, either. I doubt it's even much of the story.

[stillcool]

24. I assume nothing..that's my problem..

my knee-jerk reaction isn't quick enough.

[Marr]

28. Then you weren't one of the people

defending Obama's decision, and aren't one of the people Greenwald is talking about.

Defending this decision is the kneejerk response. It's an immediate assumption that Obama must have a good, honorable reason for doing whatever he does.

[stillcool]

37. I don't assume that Obama has..

a bad, nefarious reason for whatever he does either. If I have to be either/or..then I choose to be one of those 'cheerleaders' Greenwald is talking about. Based on what knowledge or lack of knowledge I have, I can be angry, can in now way defend this position, and yet still question the action and withhold judgment. I have even been wrong.

[Marr]

38. Then we aren't very far apart at all.

I suppose I'm a bit more cynical than you are. While I hope there's a respectable reason for this decision, I don't expect one to emerge.

[JackRiddler]

56. The reason doesn't matter as much as the right or wrong of the action itself.

If he's doing the wrong thing, then I don't care if he has "nefarious" motives or not.

Rewind a few years and you'll hear Republicans trying to cut the same slack to Bush: "What, are you saying the president is evil? What have you got against him?!"

The government is not a team you cheer for or boo against. The government is your servant. You should demand the best, not accept the middling-bad and worse as wonderful, if it comes from someone you "don't believe has nefarious reasons."

[stillcool]

62. The government is certainly not..

my servant. It would take more involvement from me, and a whole lot of other people for me to make that claim. The government does what it wants, because it can't help but do what it wants. If I hired people and let them do whatever they wanted, with no input or oversight from me..I would expect the same results. Politics to me is not a spectator sport, so there is no cheering or booing... but it obviously is to many.

[Kaleko]

45. Funny, I just wrote the exact same post

but with different words and on a different thread.

Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5651403&mesg_id=5651832

We must be twins in the gray zone where perspectives are a dime a dozen, and they all have certain merits but no single view can encompass the whole of the mess we're in now.

[stillcool]

52. nice to know I'm not alone...

:hi:

[Marr]

17. I'm sorry- but that almost sounded like the, "they know something we don't know" line

from a few years back. It wasn't true then and I rather doubt it's true now. In either case, I don't see why politicians should be granted such a massive benefit of the doubt on matters this important.

[stillcool]

26. Of course they know something we don't..

a whole lot of something...and the reason why our government is as fucked up as it is, is because we freely give politicians the power to do whatever they want. They don't need 'benefit of the doubt'. The same individual politicians vote the same way..there is no doubt when a vote comes up exactly how they will vote. Who cares?

[slipslidingaway]

29. Nor do I, surely there are threads from a few weeks ago

applauding the decision.

[stillcool]

4. Ugh...cheerleaders..

I certainly don't defend Obama's position..I have no idea why the reversal came. I surely don't believe the stated reason. I wish I too saw the world in black & white. It must be nice. I guess you don't have to waste any time questioning or thinking, when you already know your answer based on so little information.

[BeFree]

5. Why?

He needs the judge to tell him to release the photos. That way he's clean of all politics.

[Marr]

21. That may very well be.

However, it's not an assumption I would feel comfortable making.

[slipslidingaway]

32. The judge already has...

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/letter_singh_20090423.pdf

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/torturephoto_reversal_letter_20090513.pdf

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. There are reasons why this place reminds me at times of the... sister site

that shall not be mentioned...

You know party before country.

[slipslidingaway]

30. Sometimes I need to be reminded what I am supposed to suppport

:evilgrin:

[Bluerthanblue]

8. Had the US bombed a group of civilians in Afghanistan 2 wks ago?

was Pakistan as unstable as it is today 2 wks. ago?

Had the Generals weighed in with Obama discussing their fears about what was going to happen 2wks ago? Even Gen. Gates changed his opinion within the last 2 wks.

Life isn't stagnant. Situations are changing as we type our useless words on this internet. Anyone who refuses to acknowledge that is stupid. Anyone who stubbornly refuses to change their mind, for fear of being labeled a 'flip-flopper' or because it will likely anger 'their base' doesn't deserve to be leader of anything- that was bush's mo. not Obamas.

[ZombieHorde]

12. The "our enemies will freak" argument is pre-Obama.

The situation is not a new one.

[ihavenobias]

16. Imagine if McCain had won, and he was making this argument (i.e. it'll embolden the enemy).

Progressives would be ALL OVER HIM, and for good reason. It's not about the messenger, it's about the message, even if we assume they have different motives.

At least that's how it *should* be.

[Marr]

23. Oh, please.

You expect people to believe that the reason you didn't complain about Obama's decision two weeks ago, but are fine with today's decision... is because you're following the stability of Pakistan's government so closely?

Give me a break.

[Bluerthanblue]

35. who the fuck said i was 'fine' with today's decision?

maybe you really do need a break-

maybe we all need a break from all this disgusting self righteous ranting.

I'm so sick of people thinking they are the only ones who care about justice- and anyone who doesn't dance to the tune their fiddle plays must not be 'progressive' enough- or want to see accountability and change-

It's so easy do demand that Obama do what YOU want, and condemn him and everyone around him as worthless when he doesn't.
It's also pretty fruitless.

There are people who will NEVER be satisfied- and never run out of reasons to condemn not only any decision that Obama makes, but also accuse him making decisions based on self interest.

With supporters like us, who needs the republicans?

[Marr]

36. Just what are you arguing, exactly?

You offer a list of reasons that people should respect today's decision, then become irate at the suggestion that you respect today's decision.

[Bluerthanblue]

39. "respect" the decision?

If you mean that I'm not willing to jump up and down on Obama's grave because of his decision- then yes, I guess I 'respect' it.
I'm not 'happy' about it. There's a big impatient part of me that would just like to have this over with- out in the open- NOW. But there is also the reality that the "big picture" is a bit more complicated than what you or I are able to adequately comprehend. I don't think Obama was really very 'happy' to delay the release.

If you could step back and have a look at the responses to his decision, the over the top outrage- the "he's sold out" "he's in the republican's pocket" kind of bullshit- maybe you'd understand my irritation. It's bad enough to have to deal with the irrational rantings of some of the right wing idiots who go on about birth certificates (even NOW)- but to watch how people here jump in (almost gleefully) spread the 'hate on Obama' for everything from the stimulus, to single payer, to nominees, to getting a 'non-pound' dog- makes me really think that our country is just a mass of selfish, impatient fools.

I think most of us here want bush/cheney et.al to be held accountable for the crimes they committed. It's not going to be easy, and it isn't going to be quick. But that shouldn't stop us- We'll never succeed if we aren't willing to work together, and careful to do things right.

I don't like this decision. But I believe Obama wants to set things right as much as any of us do. I'm NOT 'fine' with it- but I don't think Obama has abandoned the cause based on this decision.

Sorry I bit your head off. I was responding to more than your reply- I apologize.

peace~

[Marr]

44. No offense taken.

I apologize for being rude myself.

[Individualist]

27. You're going to need some Antivert

after all that spinning.

[Bluerthanblue]

40. sometimes facing reality does make your head spin- that doesn't

change the reality-

It's easy to condemn. All too often doing the right thing isn't easy- especially in the short term, but that doesn't change the fact that it's right.

Obama IS the Commander in Chief. I wish bush cared one tiny fraction as much about the welfare of our men and women on the ground as Obama does. I don't believe this decision came easily, or lightly. Obama released the memos - he didn't have to do that. He isn't an advocate of torture. Why would he change his mind if he didn't think it was best for everyone right now? Do you really have that little respect for him?

[Individualist]

42. spin doctor: A person who publicizes favorable interpretations of the words and actions of a public

figure, especially a politician.

[Bluerthanblue]

43. ? is that all you've got?

you want to call me names?

:shrug:

I may not be college educated but I know what a 'spin-doctor' is.

What's the point? Enlighten me please?

[slipslidingaway]

31. Sometimes there is no convenient time :( n/t

[Bluerthanblue]

41. I don't think it's about convenience- I think it's about

wisdom. You're right though, there will never be a 'comfortable' time to release them, but there may very well be a much smarter time to do it. What do you think his reasons were if you don't believe it was based on the safety of our men and women overseas?

[slipslidingaway]

55. According to the ACLU these photos are from different locations

and will help prove that torture program was widespread, not just a few bad apples.

Supposedly there are photos from Afghanistan and with the escalation of troops into that country it could inflame the people of that country even more.

IMO what also inflames the situation in the region is the surge in troops and the rise in bombs being dropped.

Record bombs dropped in Afghanistan in April

http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:IP6vMtIy8SkJ:www.navytimes.com/news/2009/05/airforce_april_airstrike_050409w/+Record+number+of+bombs+dropped+in+Afghanistan+in+April&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

http://www.juancole.com/2009/05/return-to-unity-government-in-pakistan.html


http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/39455prs20090423.html

"...include images from prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan at locations other than Abu Ghraib.

"These photographs provide visual proof that prisoner abuse by U.S. personnel was not aberrational but widespread, reaching far beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib," said Amrit Singh, staff attorney with the ACLU. "Their disclosure is critical for helping the public understand the scope and scale of prisoner abuse as well as for holding senior officials accountable for authorizing or permitting such abuse."


Originally in the lawsuit only 44 photos were mentioned, but the government stated on 4/23/2009 that they would release substantially more photos, up to 2000 by some reports, in addition to the 44 photos. The original number of photos would be bad enough, but the government sought to go even further...their quick reversal is baffling.

[Bluerthanblue]

57. thanks for the links- I'm going to go read them- Have you seen

the documentary "Taxi to the Dark Side"?

I posted a link to watch it online not too long ago- It talks about how torture was spread from Abu Ghraib to Baghram and other places- I highly recommend seeing it if you haven't.

:hi:

[slipslidingaway]

60. Yes, I've seen it already thank you, PBS also had a documentary

that follows the torture from one location to another and you can watch it online, BTW this was done in 2005.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/


And you're welcome.

:hi:

[liberalmuse]

9. I'm a huge Obama fan. Or was.

I can't defend this. I got after people recently for criticizing Obama on something, but I guess we all have our breaking point. I'm simply devastated about this most recent development. Shit, I can't stop crying. All the crying and agonizing for the past 6 years about what we did and were doing in Iraq means absolutely nothing. If President Obama will not restore American's honor, who in the fuck will? Jesus, what a dark day. Again, I can't defend this shit. This is where I get off the Obama love train.

[lxlxlxl]

11. It's not just Obama for me...

Not crying but really close. There is just this sick fucking atmosphere in this country that is predictable, and self-serving. It's been evident since late last year. There was a really dark streak to the GOP's campaign, the whitewashing of GOP complicity with Bush, the limiting of the torture debate to just waterboarding, and the sudden appearance of Dick Cheney, who will never have to say the word Halliburton once in the public (for some fucking reason)

Add in a financial crisis that was openly a year in the making, and I'm at the end of my rope.

As someone that takes social change seriously, even if Obama did everything perfect the next 8 years I just dont see any strength in the country that wouldnt just see a positive sustained energy to tackle what we need to tackle...

depressing rant off...

[Lilith Velkor]

66. I'm so sorry.

(No, really...I am.)

:hug:

[JohnnyLib2]

15. Seems like a good point to me. (item 5)

I smell a lot of hypocrisy today, here and elsewhere.

[Supersedeas]

58. Hypocrisy or a level of trust in the President that some important new information had not been

considered.

[high density]

18. Don't care either way to be perfectly honest.

Releasing torture photos is pretty low on my list of things I'd like to see Obama tackle. It is just not important in my daily life.

[Individualist]

19. By all means, don't waste your beautiful mind on such things.

[high density]

47. That's a nice personal insult

But it's a shit argument about why I should care about Obama releasing these photos.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.

[slipslidingaway]

34. Defense Department To Release Prisoner Abuse Photos By May 28 In Response To ACLU Lawsuit

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/39455prs20090423.html

NEW YORK – In a letter addressed to a federal court today, the Department of Defense announced that it will make public by May 28 a "substantial number" of photos depicting the abuse of prisoners by U.S. personnel. The photos, which are being released in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in 2004, include images from prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan at locations other than Abu Ghraib.

"These photographs provide visual proof that prisoner abuse by U.S. personnel was not aberrational but widespread, reaching far beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib," said Amrit Singh, staff attorney with the ACLU. "Their disclosure is critical for helping the public understand the scope and scale of prisoner abuse as well as for holding senior officials accountable for authorizing or permitting such abuse."

The letter follows a September 2008 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit requiring disclosure of the photos and the court's subsequent refusal in March 2009 to rehear the case. The Defense Department has indicated that it will not ask the Supreme Court to review the Second Circuit's ruling...


...The disclosure of these photographs serves as a further reminder that abuse of prisoners in U.S.-administered detention centers was systemic," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. "Some of the abuse occurred because senior civilian and military officials created a culture of impunity in which abuse was tolerated, and some of the abuse was expressly authorized. It's imperative that senior officials who condoned or authorized abuse now be held accountable for their actions."

[Kaleko]

46. That should be an OP.

Thanks for posting so quickly! Wow.

[Raksha]

63. It isn't a new release - the article is dated April 23rd.

That's when the initial announcement of the court's decision came out.

[Kaleko]

65. Right. I posted before checking the date.

Knee-jerk hope made me do it. :blush:

[malaise]

48. He's right

as usual.

[EPIC1934]

50. Syndicate Greenwald

Of course hell never be allowed in Corporate Media

but what we can do is effectively syndicate Greenwald by posting him on big newspaper web sites discussion boards all around the country. SOME of these get tons of hits.

Why this instead of ONLY DU

The important thing is to GET THIS INTO THE MORE GENERAL POLITICAL SPECTRUM getting those who would not otherwise see it to see how similar the dems often are to the republicans. IT DOESNT WORK IF ONLY WE READ GREENWALD. PLEASE HELP MY ""SYNDICATE GREENWALD"" VIA POPULAR CLICKN PASTE!

THE INTERNET IS ISOLATED SILOS. MAKE A STADIUM. THEN AND ONLY THEN WILL NETWORKS TREMBLE.

[Political Tiger]

49. "For all of you defend-Obama-at-all-cost cheerleaders"

That's where I stopped reading. Recycling old PUMA talking points is not the way to be taken seriously, and after seeing how childish he is, anything Glen Greenwald says is not worth the time as far as I am concerned.

[ProgressIn2008]

53. Gotcha. Greenwald is a PUMA. That's the problem here, eh? nt

[Raineyb]

54. Right because pointing out hypocrisy is just for children

Your statement says a lot more about you than it does Greenwald, who is spot on about this issue.

[Wednesdays]

51. K&R

:kick:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

59. You mean like how all the haters were cheering Obama two weeks ago?

[jgraz]

61. You say "haters", we say "critical thinkers". Tomato, tomahto

And, btw, ALL of the critical thinkers were praising Obama for supporting the release of these photos. I challenge you to find one who wasn't.

[pacalo]

64. Oh, please. Disagreement with Obama on his decision to not release additional photos doesn't make

the person who expresses dissatisfaction a "hater".

This goes for post #1, too, who referred to "obamawhiners".

This in-step thinking is getting to be a bit much -- this is a discussion board, not a cheerleader/fan club forum.