Releasing Abuse Photos

[BrownIndian]

Why would any country want to take photos of torture and abuse and also release them ?

 

I find it incredibly stupid that there are people who want to take pictures of such incriminating facts that can jeopardize the military and undermine the trust of the country and its military - Unless that was the intention.

 

Do you agree with the release of such photos ?

[calfoxwc]

NO.

 

I wouldn't have released the memos, either.

 

If any LEGIT wrong has been done, couldn't they

 

handle it behind closed doors without making it a

 

sensational fiasco in the media?

 

Like I said, Rockefeller release the info that we could

 

get awesome info from terrorists by listening in on their

 

cell phone conversations.

 

What a travesty, he sold out our country's intel and our safety

 

by playing politics against the Bush admin.

 

I can only guess that mz the pussy applauded his action.

[BrownIndian]

spot on.

 

The country is always greater than political preference and It is shocking that such photos are released allowing the image of the country to be tarnished. Im sure many countries have armies that have such severe torture methods but they do not release those details.

 

Equally shocking is the media's role is trying to "expose the truth" when all they are doing is whoring the story. Some things are best done behind closed doors.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Isn't this anger a little misplaced? You're mad that someone took pictures, and that someone might have released them, but not what's going on in the pictures, and who approved what's going on in the pictures?

 

I can see both sides of this argument. In the end, however, I think I would have sided with releasing the pictures. The public has a right to know what its government is doing in its name, and light, as they say, is the best disinfectant.

 

 

[Guest mz.]

Here we have a fine example of an unprovoked attack. mz the pussy hasn't even posted in this thread, yet you felt the need to lob a bomb over his way. Which is fine, if you want to flame people, then by all means flame on, but then don't turn and piss and moan about personal attacks against you.

 

The same goes for anybody who bitches about personal attacks then turns around and does the same.

 

Shit, and I haven't even had my coffee yet and I have to go defending myself all over the place.

 

It's hard work, this early on the west coast and all.....

[Mr. T]

I can see the Dems dragging this thing out into the next election season.

[Guest mz.]

This is going to just be fuel on the fire, and who knows, there could be some young man who sees this and then dedicates himself to destroying America. Now I said yesterday we should denounce these acts because they are wrong, and not because of fear we will piss these guys off, and that's still true. But that doesn't mean we have to compound it with inciting them to more action.

 

You had me up until here. I think the people who are hellbent on killing us already are. For Americans, seeing the pictures, helping folks visually connect with what was going on, might help further the cause against torture.

 

[BrownIndian]

The case against torture is there. A court will give its judgement eventually immaterial of whether these photos are released or not.

 

But these photos will help a lot in spreading a lot of Anti-American sentiments in parts of the world where previously they would not have cared. That is not good for Americans across the globe. It will also show the army in poor light esp at a time when recruitment are not great and there are enough problems as such.

 

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

nothing good can come from releasing these pictures.

 

I don't agree with that. And I don't agree with much of what you're saying. I see your point, and see the president's point, and I don't deny that this could inflame hatred, much like the photos of Abu Ghraib did. However, I would add that unlike the US, which only uses sanitized footage of the war, people in countries like Iraq and Pakistan - even in Europe - are treated to graphic images almost nightly. When we bomb a village from a Predator drone and it ends up killing civilians, believe me, they'll show those civilians with their limbs blown off. Same thing when Israel drops a bomb. The coverage is completely different, and far more graphic.

 

Also funny that when people made the point that certain things (like invading and occupying Iraq) would inflame the Muslim world, it was the right who always claimed, "They flew planes into our buildings! How much more inflamed can they get?" Remember that? Well, now apparently they're worried about inflaming the Muslim world with more interrogation photos.

 

This isn't about morbid curiosity, and no, not everyone knows that we tortured these guys. You've got a whole industry of people who are claiming that not only is this not torture, but that we need to keep doing it. Thankfully, we have a president who has decided that we no longer will.

 

When the public saw the Abu Ghraib photos they were rightly outraged. (Except for the sadist right, who either dismissed them or cheered them on.) So what did the government do? They tried a few privates and put them away, as if these weren't the specific techniques the higher-ups told them to use. Shit rolls downhill, as they say.

 

I just don't think the American public is going to realize what was done in their name, often to innocent people, until they see the pictures of it. You can release all the legal memos you like, but they don't have the same effect. Something about a picture being worth 1000 somethings. Can't remember the phrase.

 

I'd leave you with this: anti-abortion activists often march or protest while holding up enlarged pictures of aborted fetuses. They're extremely graphic images, and difficult for anyone to look at, even the most ardent supporter of abortion rights. And that's what makes them so effective - they confront people with the reality of what their political opinions and beliefs mean in real life terms. They force people to think, "Do I really want to be for this anymore?"

 

Now, what if we told those pro-life activists that they couldn't use those photos because it might upset people, or inflame people's emotions? Well, isn't that the point?

 

Different situation, of course, with different potential consequences. And I know the president is making a decision after carefully considering a host of different issues, and I don't imagine he came to it lightly. Maybe if I were in his shoes, balancing the responsibility he has to protect our soldiers, to achieve his objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to move forward with his domestic agenda, I might come to a different conclusion.

 

I just disagree with him.

 

 

 

[Guest mz.]

It's not necessary for people to "visually connect" with this unless they are borderline Retarded.

 

I don't think that's true at all.

 

There is plenty of research being done that suggests otherwise (http://www.duke.edu/web/perception/). If you don't care about visual cognition, how about "outta sight, outta mind?"

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

What it would do is put an end to the discussion that Abu Ghraib was an aberration, that these were just a few bad apples on the night shift, that we only tortured three guys and they broke right away, that this wasn't something approved and ordered out of the White House, and that "We do not torture." Or any of the dozens of other justifications that have been given.

 

This happened early and often, for a variety of reasons, and in all theaters of battle, from Iraq to Afghanistan, as well as in Gitmo, because the White House ordered it, and got the Justice Department to approve it.

 

It would expose all the lies. That's the good it would do.

[BrownIndian]

These photos could incense some hardline religious group who live in other countries like say Indonesia or Bali, who would otherwise only express anger on reading the texts and when those hardliners see these photos it is not an anger to condemn that would pop up in their mind but and anger to claim vengeance that they would be after. This could endanger the lives of Americans who are abroad. That is just one instance of things could go wrong.

 

Even truth when presented without formatting can have undesirable effects and we dont want undesirable effects.

 

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

I'm not so upset about not releasing the photos since I know the people responsible for ordering the torture and breaking the law will be held to account.

 

Oh, wait...

[BrownIndian]

The release of these photos will have a bigger impact outside US than inside. And that impact will not be positive and this is not the best of times for us to be dwelling in bad PR.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Okay, Inspecta. But next time you want to watch the Browns you only get to read about the game in the newspaper.

 

I don't see how you can deny the effect photos of detainees being tortured in Afghanistan, and in Iraq, and at Gitmo would have on the public, who has been told repeatedly and for years that this was something we didn't do, and even if we did it was only on three really bad guys at Gitmo, and only under very controlled circumstances.

 

Yes, they would be a big deal. It'd be clear that they were lying the whole time. Because they were lying the whole time.

[heckofajobbrownie]

The identities of soldiers who were ordered to do this aren't what's important here. You can pixilate them.

 

My point about the Browns is that you don't seem to think people react differently to photos as they do to printed text. But they do.

 

Also, I'm not sure the Browns can be described as "entertainment" at this point.

[choco]

i see no problem with airing out the dirty laundry.

 

covering up a monumental lie like this does nothing but make it worse....the lie gets bigger and bigger.

 

kudos to bamy for attempting to fix shrubs mistakes.

[calfoxwc]

and if it drags down Pelosi and Hillary, you'll object, right Choco?

[Guest mz.]

and if it drags down Pelosi and Hillary, you'll object, right Choco?

 

Hahahah. I cannot believe you're accusing a guy like choco of being tied to Pelosi. Have you ever read one anything he's written in here?

 

You are seriously grasping at straws here, my friend.

 

[choco]

thanks mz the pussy.....im laughing to hard to respond appropriately.....

 

 

Cal: im a libertarian. i didn't expect you could tell the difference.

[calfoxwc]

You're a libertarian?

 

Sorry, I thought you were a little weasel like mz the pussy.

 

My apologies. (but you do love you some Obama, right?)

[Guest mz.]

Sorry, I thought you were a little weasel like mz the pussy.

 

...

 

[calfoxwc]

That's what you get for insulting me at every turn. Poetic justice.

[Guest mz.]

Hey cal...nanny nanny poo poo!!!!

[Mr. T]

If someone wants to look at sick pictures they can tune in to rotten.com otherwise I really dont think anyone gives a hoot! They just love the fact we have not had anymore attacks like 911.

 

This will be played out for a while, its just an attempt at trying to embarass the former Administration. Go show how much of a gentleman Obama Isn't.

 

Its the culture of Hate from the left.

[calfoxwc]

Hey cal...nanny nanny poo poo!!!!

 

****************************

 

I called a truce. I called a truce.

 

 

I will not retaliate in kind. GGG