So how bad are those unreleased torture photos? [Archive]

Bicycle-Repairman

05-28-2009, 09:36 PM

I remember reading allegations of the abuse of prisoners in American custody before the release of the Abu Ghraib photos and it was only after the photos were released that most in the media and public started paying attention to the issue. By suppressing the other photos and saying they are "not particularly sensational" Obama is allowing people to remain in denial about just how bad the problem was. A lot of people just want to pretend it never happened and focus on other things. For the love of God, there was more media coverage today about Archie proposing to Veronica.

The truth will get out eventually. Americans have to confront this issue head on and uncover what really happened no matter how ugly it may be. They have to know who was responsible for prisoner abuse so they can make a judgment as to whether they want those people in positions of power and influence.

section 8

05-28-2009, 09:46 PM

Pretty goddamn bad, actually.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5395830/Abu-Ghraib-abuse-photos-show-rape.html

I know some people have been saying this was in the photos for years, but it's getting harder and harder to ignore and write off.

So, knowing that the photos contain rape, do you think they should be released?

Too be honest I could not care less about this topic if you put it on an episode of "Grey's Anatomy". These photos can't do any good if released. And I honestly don't know why people are so fucking eager to see them.

(but I didn't get the hype behind the "Saw" or "Hostel" films either.

J. Robb

05-28-2009, 09:51 PM

section 8

05-28-2009, 10:04 PM

People need to see every brutal detail of what invading and occupying a country entails, so the next time their leaders talk about starting a war they might think twice before jumping on the bandwagon.
No we don't.

I do not need to see the Crime Scene Photos from every murder on the news either. all this photo business is just shock value.

mikekerr3

05-28-2009, 10:20 PM

excuse me? there are levels of horribleness regarding rape and torture? I don't think so; it's inexcusable and those responsible should be facing crimes against humanity charges.

Yes there are degrees, some all are horrible crimes but some will have you waking up occasionaly with nightmares just knowing shit like that really happens.

Abu Grabe was a crime and the people involved , and the people who should have known as a matter of duty should all spend decades not years in prison, but on an absolute horribleness scale of 1 to 100 it only makes about a two. Flaying , ant-hilla feeding people slowly into furnaces. poisoning people wth thalium. are real things and have to be fit into the scale.

Shellhead

05-28-2009, 10:30 PM

It's disturbing that there are so many photos. What were our patriotic troops thinking? That these photos would be fun souvenirs to show people back home?

Gumbo Maximillian

05-28-2009, 10:44 PM

Well; you know memories and all that.

And honestly I think things like these should be released I can see keeping nuclear missile codes secret and what have you but not releasing photo's and then saying they weren 't any worse than before excepting for the fact there's some rape in there is kind of the thing that starts to lead to a serious distrust of the goverment.

It's disturbing that there are so many photos. What were our patriotic troops thinking? That these photos would be fun souvenirs to show people back home?

FunkyGreenJerusalem

05-28-2009, 11:14 PM

These photos can't do any good if released. And I honestly don't know why people are so fucking eager to see them.

Much like with photos of the Holocaust - so that those responsible are held fully accountable for their actions, not just by us, but by future generations.
So that next time this is put on the table, those photos will be held up.

Yes there are degrees, some all are horrible crimes but some will have you waking up occasionaly with nightmares just knowing shit like that really happens.

Have you seen the released uncensored photos?
This is some really inhumane shit, with grown men crying, being beaten and then sexually humiliated.

Abu Grabe was a crime and the people involved , and the people who should have known as a matter of duty should all spend decades not years in prison, but on an absolute horribleness scale of 1 to 100 it only makes about a two. Flaying , ant-hilla feeding people slowly into furnaces. poisoning people wth thalium. are real things and have to be fit into the scale.

In Afghanistan a man was kneed to death by American troops.
Kneeing in the back of the leg isn't a punch, but technically not a kick either.
He was kneed until he was black and blue, and then tied up with his hands tied above his head so he couldn't sleep.
And he died.
This happened whilst in US custody.
Oh, and the evidence tying him to the crime - the sum total of what they had after months of holding the guy?
He had two suspects who had been targeted for arrest in the back seat of his car.
His car was a taxi, and he'd been hired to drive them.
Totally innocent man.

This shit doesn't rate a two - especially not when done by the 'good' guys.

By the by, what do you rate as 100 then?

dupont2005

05-28-2009, 11:24 PM

what do you rate as 100 then?

something bad enough to rate a 99 + poop

FunkyGreenJerusalem

05-28-2009, 11:29 PM

something bad enough to rate a 99 + poop

So in other words, nothing.

Imagine this was done to American troops and/or American citizens who were captured and held in military custody by another country.

Would you be alright with it then?

section 8

05-28-2009, 11:55 PM

Much like with photos of the Holocaust - so that those responsible are held fully accountable for their actions, not just by us, but by future generations.
So that next time this is put on the table, those photos will be held up.

Godwin Fail

First of all, The Holocaust was SIX MILLION MURDERS perpetuated by an entire nation that only ended when the ENTIRE FREE WORLD came together to stand against it

Abu Ghraib took place in a single prison and was perpetuated by a handful rogue soldiers who are have been charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for their crimes. It was neither the same scale of the Holocaust, nor was it an accepted or state sponsored event.

Your comparison, while an attempt to exaggerate the war-crimes that took place in Abu Ghraib, In fact trivializes and cheapens the horrors of the Holocaust as well.

Unbelievable Godwin-Fail

FunkyGreenJerusalem

05-29-2009, 12:03 AM

Godwin Fail

Adults talking here, dear.

First of all, The Holocaust was SIX MILLION MURDERS perpetuated by an entire nation that only ended when the ENTIRE FREE WORLD came together to stand against it

War crimes are war crimes, thus a comparison is fair.

And that's a nice bit of revisionist history but the entire free world didn't oppose it, and even the Allies weren't there to stop the holocaust - they were there to stop the land grab invasions.

Abu Ghraib took place in a single prison and was perpetuated by a handful rogue soldiers who are have been charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for their crimes. It is neither the scale of the Holocaust, nor was it an accepted or state sponsored event.

Actually, there is evidence of it being both accepted and a state encouraged event.

And it didn't just take place in a single prison - that's the prison where the photos were taken.
It's a microcosm of what was going with the prisoners at the time - the guards weren't doing it for a laugh, they were doing it as part of breaking the prisoners - it was interrogation.

Your comparison, while an attempt to exaggerate the war-crimes that took place in Abu Ghraib, In fact trivializes and cheapens the horrors of the Holocaust as well.

Again sunshine, the adults are talking here - I compared it with the releasing of holocaust photos, and why, despite being disgusting and tragic, such images must be released to the public.
To stop it happening again.
That said, your opinions on this matter would be much more interesting if you had a grasp on very recent, or even past, history, and had more to stand on then you just don't like the idea of your country, and countrymen, doing something so inherently evil.

Unbelievable Godwin-Fail

Man up and argue a point, instead of misuing an internet safety net.

Bicycle-Repairman

05-29-2009, 12:04 AM

Too be honest I could not care less about this topic if you put it on an episode of "Grey's Anatomy". These photos can't do any good if released. And I honestly don't know why people are so fucking eager to see them.

Because if people found out what really happened maybe they would be shocked out of their apathy and make sure it never happens again. Americans need to find out who allowed the abuse and decide if they really want them serving in the military, government, law, or education where they can continue to influence policies. There are some people who justify the abuse of prisoners and say it wasn't that bad. If the photos aren't released they'll just dismiss the allegations as the lies of the "blame America first" crowd. The nation needs to confront the issue and find out the truth, not sweep it under the rug and hope everyone forgets about it.

Fenris

05-29-2009, 12:22 AM

My general instinct is to say yes, release them.

Maybe it will inflame opinion against America and heighten the War on Terror. But the world already knows about the pictures, and Abu Ghraib: the whole pragmatic-secrecy argument is shutting the barn door after the horse has fled.

And what is it with this guy, anyway: “These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency. I am not sure what purpose their release would serve other than a legal one and the consequence would be to imperil our troops, the only protectors of our foreign policy, when we most need them, and British troops who are trying to build security in Afghanistan. The mere description of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it.”

If you're going to follow the secrecy argument and not release the pictures, then fine: but in that case, follow the secrecy argument! Don't tell everyone, "These pictures are horrible, awful, atrocious... but we don't want to inflame people by showing them. Did I mention the rapes? Well, never mind, we don't want to antagonize anyone by dwelling on the horrible crimes that American soldiers committed at Abu Ghraib. Of which we have pictures. That we're not showing you."

He sounds very much like a person who wants the photos released, but is under orders not to. At least, that's what I'd guess.

I'm a little hesitant because of Obama. He knows more about the situation than I do; he has no culpability or personal interest; and he doesn't want them released. He's presumably thought the matter through carefully before reaching that decision.

But unless there's some specific security issue (of what kind? I can't imagine.) then the secrecy argument is already a lost cause. If you don't release the photos, they'll be the subject of endless propaganda anyway; we might as well be honest about what happened.

õ
Horrible as it is!

FunkyGreenJerusalem

05-29-2009, 12:26 AM

"The mere description of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it.”

Obviously they aren't, because people still supported the idea of torture even after the first few pictures came out, and descriptions of what was being done were released.
There's intellectually knowing something, and then there's seeing it.

Shawn Hopkins

05-29-2009, 12:37 AM

Because if people found out what really happened maybe they would be shocked out of their apathy and make sure it never happens again. Americans need to find out who allowed the abuse and decide if they really want them serving in the military, government, law, or education where they can continue to influence policies. There are some people who justify the abuse of prisoners and say it wasn't that bad. If the photos aren't released they'll just dismiss the allegations as the lies of the "blame America first" crowd. The nation needs to confront the issue and find out the truth, not sweep it under the rug and hope everyone forgets about it.

I agree. If they keep them under the rug it'll always be possible for some people to deny that they actually exist. Seymour Hersh was describing some of this stuff in 2004, but with no photos to back him up it was easy to deny it. Releasing the photos would allow us to know for sure and that might put pressure on future administrations to change the way things are done.

Right now, they're still denying them. Even Obama is saying they aren't that sensational, and he can keep saying that and people will keep believing him until they actually see the pictures. The Pentagon is denying that they even include rape, and we won't know for sure until we can see them.

The rogue soldiers thing just doesn't hold up. These things didn't happen in secret. You can't pile 20 naked guys in a human pyramid in a hallway without people noticing it. The fact is that sexual humiliation, turning dogs on people and other forms of abuse were encouraged to break the prisoners for interrogation. Maybe they didn't say, specifically, that rape was okay, but they did tell them that the people in their custody were terrible enemies who had no real legal rights and encouraged them to push right up to the line of rape and torture. It's not real surprising that some people went over that line and it's naive to think that the administration would believe it wouldn't happen.

We don't even know what happened to the people who physically participated in these acts, we're just given a vague assertion that they were appropriately dealt with. What was the Bush's administration's idea of how to appropriately deal with something like this? A 30 day suspension? We don't know.

I wouldn't have a problem with blurring out faces of the rape victims, though, I guess.

Fenris

05-29-2009, 12:43 AM

Obviously they aren't, because people still supported the idea of torture even after the first few pictures came out, and descriptions of what was being done were released.
There's intellectually knowing something, and then there's seeing it.

That's true. But you're talking about different things.

You're thinking about the domestic reception by American voters; and he's not talking about that at all. He's talking about their reception by potential terrorist recruits, and that's a very different audience.

For one thing, Americans have a strong incentive not to believe in it, or to downplay it, whereas young middle-eastern men don't.

Second thought: the difference between journalism and propaganda is that propagandists can freely use photoshop. If we don't release the photos, then photos will still be put out there. So even in terms of visual impact, there probably isn't going to be that much of a difference.

õ
Again, it depends on what you're focused on here!

FunkyGreenJerusalem

05-29-2009, 12:58 AM

The rogue soldiers thing just doesn't hold up. These things didn't happen in secret. You can't pile 20 naked guys in a human pyramid in a hallway without people noticing it. The fact is that sexual humiliation, turning dogs on people and other forms of abuse were encouraged to break the prisoners for interrogation. Maybe they didn't say, specifically, that rape was okay, but they did tell them that the people in their custody were terrible enemies who had no real legal rights and encouraged them to push right up to the line of rape and torture. It's not real surprising that some people went over that line and it's naive to think that the administration would believe it wouldn't happen.

In Taxi To The Dark Side, the troops in Afghanistan who beat the man to death - they didn't mean to kill him, just interrogate them - all said that their head officer was filing reports of what they were doing and constantly asking for training and more information about interrogating as none of them had training in it.
The requests just weren't answered - ie. keep doing what you are doing.
It says it, without saying it.

That's true. But you're talking about different things.

You're thinking about the domestic reception by American voters; and he's not talking about that at all. He's talking about their reception by potential terrorist recruits, and that's a very different audience.

For one thing, Americans have a strong incentive not to believe in it, or to downplay it, whereas young middle-eastern men don't.

Second thought: the difference between journalism and propaganda is that propagandists can freely use photoshop. If we don't release the photos, then photos will still be put out there. So even in terms of visual impact, there probably isn't going to be that much of a difference.

õ
Again, it depends on what you're focused on here!

Because the sort of person going to join a terrorist cell really needs more convincing to join?
You either get nutters or people who have been personally affected joining up - and both seem to be doing that fine.
It might rally more support, but again, they've been doing fine without these photos.

The most you'll get is protests in streets, clerics denouncing and maybe one group will use it as the time to do something they had planned anyway - y'know, use it as the reason in the hope it makes them look like bigger heroes.

But yeah, I think they should be released because people need to be able to see it - transparency is important - and I think the terrorist argument is a straw man.

Bicycle-Repairman

05-29-2009, 01:03 AM

I'm a little hesitant because of Obama. He knows more about the situation than I do; he has no culpability or personal interest; and he doesn't want them released.webdings"

Obama does have some personal interest in the matter. He wants to focus on the economy, health care, and other parts of his agenda instead of spending time discussing the dirty secrets of the previous administration. He might be afraid of souring the White House's relationship with the military and the CIA. A lot of Democratic politicians are afraid of doing anything that might be seen as criticizing the military or jeopardizing security. One thing I've always worried about Obama is that he doesn't want to be divisive and seems to think being in the middle of the road on issues is noble. But what is the middle ground on torture and prosecuting crimes? Some on the right keep moving so far to the extreme on these issues that the middle will always be shifting.

mikekerr3

05-29-2009, 01:36 AM

It's disturbing that there are so many photos. What were our patriotic troops thinking? That these photos would be fun souvenirs to show people back home?

Either they were not thinking, or they are on the other side. But as Heinlein said "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity".

StoneGold

05-29-2009, 01:38 AM

Have you ever looked at the average Facebook page of a 19 year old? Now give that 19 year old a fully automatic rifle. You do the math.

mikekerr3

05-29-2009, 01:43 AM

Much like with photos of the Holocaust - so that those responsible are held fully accountable for their actions, not just by us, but by future generations.
So that next time this is put on the table, those photos will be held up.

Have you seen the released uncensored photos?
This is some really inhumane shit, with grown men crying, being beaten and then sexually humiliated.

In Afghanistan a man was kneed to death by American troops.
Kneeing in the back of the leg isn't a punch, but technically not a kick either.
He was kneed until he was black and blue, and then tied up with his hands tied above his head so he couldn't sleep.
And he died.
This happened whilst in US custody.
Oh, and the evidence tying him to the crime - the sum total of what they had after months of holding the guy?
He had two suspects who had been targeted for arrest in the back seat of his car.
His car was a taxi, and he'd been hired to drive them.
Totally innocent man.

This shit doesn't rate a two - especially not when done by the 'good' guys.

By the by, what do you rate as 100 then?

A 100, infecting someone with typhus repeatedly, then giving alm,ost enough medication to treat the disease. Infecting childen with Rabies and tennus then vivisecting them to study the effects on a living body, Both of those were actually carried out by Unit 731of the Japanese Army during the second world War on Chinese civilians.

A 50 would be the old KGB trick of feeding someone an inch at a time into a furnace feet first. Or the Apache bit with an anthill and wet rawhide. Or the trick od staking someone out in the sun after having cut off their eyelids.

Fenris

05-29-2009, 01:47 AM

Because the sort of person going to join a terrorist cell really needs more convincing to join?
You either get nutters or people who have been personally affected joining up - and both seem to be doing that fine.

I think that recruitment is probably more complicated than that. (What exactly is nutters in this context? Someone who believes that Jews control America and drink the blood of children? But that's just a detail on the nightly news in parts of the Arab world.)

But yeah, I think they should be released because people need to be able to see it - transparency is important - and I think the terrorist argument is a straw man.

I think one of Obama's biggest problems, both domestically and abroad, is going to be the fact that a lot of his supporters consider terrorism in general to be a straw man- whereas he takes it very seriously.

õ
Or at least, that's the impression he gives me!

Fenris

05-29-2009, 02:02 AM

Obama does have some personal interest in the matter. He wants to focus on the economy, health care, and other parts of his agenda instead of spending time discussing the dirty secrets of the previous administration. He might be afraid of souring the White House's relationship with the military and the CIA. A lot of Democratic politicians are afraid of doing anything that might be seen as criticizing the military or jeopardizing security. One thing I've always worried about Obama is that he doesn't want to be divisive and seems to think being in the middle of the road on issues is noble. But what is the middle ground on torture and prosecuting crimes? Some on the right keep moving so far to the extreme on these issues that the middle will always be shifting.

That's not really what I meant by "personal interest." Those are policy interests; any President would have to think about them, and factor them into his decision.

If you'll pardon the paradox: I believe his statement because it's weird. He says that they shouldn't release the pictures because it would inflame terrorists; which is practically a Bush quote. As such, it's bound to provoke skepticism from... well, the large majority of people who've gotten really sick of Bush-sounding talking points over the last eight years.

It's not the sort of thing Obama would make up, if he were just worried about spinning a news cycle. If that's all he's doing, then he's being really incompetent at it. And that strikes me as unlikely.

õ
But that's beyond guesswork, obviously!

sHayden

05-29-2009, 04:28 AM

Have you ever looked at the average Facebook page of a 19 year old? Now give that 19 year old a fully automatic rifle. You do the math.

You just hit the nail on the head.
Plus, I think the military in many cases is scraping the bottom of the barrel for recruits.

And why the fuck do we get so upset? The other side airs be-headings on TV and thinks it's just dandy. We believe as a nation we have to hold ourselves to such high standards? I don't. Just do what has to be don because you have a lot of other nut jobs in the world that use that as their only code of conduct.

MKTerra

05-29-2009, 05:14 AM

First of all, The Holocaust was SIX MILLION MURDERS perpetuated by an entire nation that only ended when the ENTIRE FREE WORLD came together to stand against itThis reminds me of an interesting argument I heard elsewhere: That, despite the magnitude of the Holocaust and all the material evidence behind it, including prisoner photos taken by Allied soldiers, there are still many people who would deny that it ever happened. And that someday, people will want to deny Abu Ghraib too, which is why the photographic evidence needs to be released, as proof and warning to future generations.

Calybos

05-29-2009, 06:02 AM

I do not need to see the Crime Scene Photos from every murder on the news either. all this photo business is just shock value.

True, but then you already accept that murder is a bad thing.

Way too many Americans are still thinking that torture is "okay, as long as it happens to people who don't look like me and make me feel scared." They apparently need a little reminder of that tiny spark of humanity they've left buried for too long.

.

section 8

05-29-2009, 06:09 AM

This reminds me of an interesting argument I heard elsewhere: That, despite the magnitude of the Holocaust and all the material evidence behind it, including prisoner photos taken by Allied soldiers, there are still many people who would deny that it ever happened. And that someday, people will want to deny Abu Ghraib too, which is why the photographic evidence needs to be released, as proof and warning to future generations.

Who's trying to deny it? I really need to see a link to back up THAT claim (and not to some psycho redneck's Blog either)

It's pretty hard to deny that crimes took place, once C.I.D. comes in and starts making arrests, now isn't it?

In fact, I believe it may be the exact opposite, I think maybe the only purpose releasing these photos could serve is to fan the flames of anti-American sentiment by using the actions of a few criminals to reflect negatively on the entire U.S. Military.

True, but then you already accept that murder is a bad thing.

Way too many Americans are still thinking that torture is "okay, as long as it happens to people who don't look like me and make me feel scared."

Were this true, McCain would have been elected... by a landslide.

Mac Danny

05-29-2009, 06:46 AM

That's not really what I meant by "personal interest." Those are policy interests; any President would have to think about them, and factor them into his decision.

If you'll pardon the paradox: I believe his statement because it's weird. He says that they shouldn't release the pictures because it would inflame terrorists; which is practically a Bush quote. As such, it's bound to provoke skepticism from... well, the large majority of people who've gotten really sick of Bush-sounding talking points over the last eight years.

It's not the sort of thing Obama would make up, if he were just worried about spinning a news cycle. If that's all he's doing, then he's being really incompetent at it. And that strikes me as unlikely.

õ
But that's beyond guesswork, obviously!

I think the thing that throws people about Obama is he is willing to adopt a good or even passable argument from someone else and see the merit in it. When most people expect, "everything that guy did was wrong and I'm right" politics, it throws them when there is compromise, thoughtfulness and middle ground.

I agree it is going to do more to hurt our efforts overseas. We don't need to add to the terrorist recruitment drive. There is enough ammo there without us "helping"

I do believe that those people depicted in the photos should be brought up on charges and dismissed from duty.

Bicycle-Repairman

05-29-2009, 09:16 AM

And why the fuck do we get so upset? The other side airs be-headings on TV and thinks it's just dandy. We believe as a nation we have to hold ourselves to such high standards? I don't. Just do what has to be don because you have a lot of other nut jobs in the world that use that as their only code of conduct.

Are you okay with multiple instances of torture, rape, and murder? Because those are the worst allegations I've heard. And how many innocent people are you willing to subject to abuse in the process of dealing with the guilty? Because there have been cases of prisoners accused of supporting terrorism who were later released without charges. Torture often results in unreliable information. There are experienced interrogators who say these abuses weren't necessary. Yes there are greater crimes committed by the enemy, but that's supposedly what we're trying to stop. If the U.S. will not honour its own laws against torture and prisoner abuse how can it expect others to behave.

Charles RB

05-29-2009, 09:28 AM

Well, this post:

And why the fuck do we get so upset? The other side airs be-headings on TV and thinks it's just dandy. We believe as a nation we have to hold ourselves to such high standards? I don't. Just do what has to be don because you have a lot of other nut jobs in the world that use that as their only code of conduct.

just swung me towards being in favour of showing the photos. Let's have it known exactly what people are defending when they say "do what was to be done".

Paradox

05-29-2009, 09:34 AM

section 8 underestimates nutbars:

Who's trying to deny it? I really need to see a link to back up THAT claim (and not to some psycho redneck's Blog either)

Are you saying you don't think there's holocaust denial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial) out there? It has a long and frighteningly widespread history. Or am I just misreading you?

Shellhead

05-29-2009, 09:36 AM

Well, this post:

just swung me towards being in favour of showing the photos. Let's have it known exactly what people are defending when they say "do what was to be done".

Same here. Put the photos out there, and let people deal with it.

All hyperbole aside, I would like to see an open public discussion about what America stands for. If we stand for the same things that Saddam Hussein stood for, like rape, torture and other violations of human rights, then seriously, what was the point of invading? Huge waste of money if we all we are doing is changing the nationality of the rapists and torturers.

Charles RB

05-29-2009, 09:44 AM

All hyperbole aside, I would like to see an open public discussion about what America stands for. If we stand for the same things that Saddam Hussein stood for, like rape, torture and other violations of human rights, then seriously, what was the point of invading?

The impression I get with justifications for torture is that America stands for specific high ideals and can ignore those ideals to do What Needs To Be Done (whether it does need to be or not) at the same time. It can do that because of what America stands for. It's the Good Guy, so if it does things that are Bad that's fine because it's the Good Guy - those things are just necessary, it doesn't mean you're the Bad Guy.

Shawn Hopkins

05-29-2009, 09:49 AM

The impression I get with justifications for torture is that America stands for specific high ideals and can ignore those ideals to do What Needs To Be Done (whether it does need to be or not) at the same time. It can do that because of what America stands for. It's the Good Guy, so if it does things that are Bad that's fine because it's the Good Guy - those things are just necessary, it doesn't mean you're the Bad Guy.

It must make their heads hurt to force themselves to believe something like that.

Shellhead

05-29-2009, 10:04 AM

It must make their heads hurt to force themselves to believe something like that.

Nah, Jack Bauer helps them figure it out.

thespianphryne

05-29-2009, 10:25 AM

Freedom isn't free, you fuckers. And if de-humanisation and degradation of those people out there is what it takes. I'm all for it. Especially of those fuckers out there are the ones paying the price. I don't care about standards as long as I'm free. Free to do whatever I want.Ethics and standards are a chain, they restrict you. I want to be free. Free, I tell you! I'm all with boshobosho on this one.

Mac Danny

05-29-2009, 10:29 AM

worstblogever

05-29-2009, 10:31 AM

Have you ever looked at the average Facebook page of a 19 year old? Now give that 19 year old a fully automatic rifle. You do the math.

*applauds*

These are the kind of statements that make me have a man-crush on you, man.

Shellhead

05-29-2009, 11:01 AM

Mac Danny

05-29-2009, 11:11 AM

You must have an interesting definition of freedom.

Freedom does cost $1.05 (http://www.livevideo.com/video/96C19D1A8EBF414197455C1E7C7DF9D4/team-america-song-freedom-isn.aspx)

beetlebum

05-29-2009, 11:25 AM

Until I read this thread, I had no idea that anyone was raped.

I literally can't describe the disgust and shock I feel upon learning of this.

I thought the fact that people were tortured was bad enough, but the rape just makes the whole entire thing even worse (in my opionion).

And that's mainly because I have had experience dealing with people who were the victims of sexual assault, and abuse.

Shellhead

05-29-2009, 11:34 AM

thespianphryne

05-29-2009, 12:34 PM

You must have an interesting definition of freedom.

It's a modest definition.

Adam C

05-29-2009, 01:34 PM

Your comparison, while an attempt to exaggerate the war-crimes that took place in Abu Ghraib, In fact trivializes and cheapens the horrors of the Holocaust as well.

Unbelievable Godwin-Fail

If you actually read the argument beyond knee-jerk emotionalism you'd realise that his point wasn't that the two events are strictly comparable. It was that making public the visible proof of the extent of the crimes would impress it on the memory of the public and make resorting to such measures beyond the pale for future policy. It's harder to distance oneself from atrocities when they are made visible. The photos of the Holocaust victims were used an example to illustrate the point.

And it's hard to claim that it was isolated to just one prison given the evidence we've seen of torture at Guatanamo, U.S. prisons in Afghanistan, CIA black sites, and extraordinary rendition. Doubly so when there's FBI memo where a commander refers to an Executive Order (http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/FBI.121504.4940_4941.pdf) that authorizes the techniques used and a former General (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L25726413.htm) has said that Rumsfeld okayed abuses.

And finally..."the entire free world came together to stand against it?" Yes the Allies put a stop to it, but as I understand they weren't really aware of what was going on until 1944 and Stalinist Russia isn't exactly a part of "the free world" is it?

mikekerr3

05-29-2009, 01:48 PM

You just hit the nail on the head.
Plus, I think the military in many cases is scraping the bottom of the barrel for recruits.

And why the fuck do we get so upset? The other side airs be-headings on TV and thinks it's just dandy. We believe as a nation we have to hold ourselves to such high standards? I don't. Just do what has to be don because you have a lot of other nut jobs in the world that use that as their only code of conduct.

Is the idea of rule of law too hard for some to understand.:rolleyes:

If You become a country that just does what has to be done without recourse for the law, the bottom of the barrel is all you will have left, T he professional military will just walk away.It would be hard to turn a lifetime of believe in law ind honor int becoming a 21St century Gestapo. And it's not like you can force them:tongue:

We hold ourselves to high standards because otherwise we lose something essential to who we are.

And since a lot of the people being heldare being held on pretty flimsy evidence as listed above, what does the action of terrorist have to do with torturing peole that you don't even know are terrorists?

IF we follow the course you want to set the old line from the Pogo comic strip become the tragic reality "We have met the enemy, and he is us"

IF we throw away or laws morals and codes of conduct why bothe fighting, we have become what we are fighting

mikekerr3

05-29-2009, 01:56 PM

section 8

05-29-2009, 02:19 PM

Are you saying you don't think there's holocaust denial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial) out there? It has a long and frighteningly widespread history. Or am I just misreading you?

You are misreading me.

I doubt there are many (keyword "Many") who can deny the crimes at Abu Ghraib.

If you actually read the argument beyond knee-jerk emotionalism you'd realise that his point wasn't that the two events are strictly comparable.

The entire point of his comparison was to provoke a Knee jerk Emotional response...

J. Robb

05-29-2009, 04:10 PM

Charles RB

05-29-2009, 04:11 PM

Doubly so when there's FBI memo where a commander refers to an Executive Order (http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/FBI.121504.4940_4941.pdf) that authorizes the techniques used and a former General (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L25726413.htm) has said that Rumsfeld okayed abuses.

I truly hope they were ignorant of the serious shit and the rapes and didn't knowingly/deliberately okay them.

Otherwise, HOW in God's name are they walking around free?

dupont2005

05-29-2009, 05:25 PM

So in other words, nothing.

Imagine this was done to American troops and/or American citizens who were captured and held in military custody by another country.

Would you be alright with it then?

i'm not alright with it now, but i would be even less alright with it if poop were involved

section 8

05-29-2009, 09:17 PM

Paradox

05-29-2009, 09:57 PM

Knowing Das, I'd go with 100%. :wink:

mikekerr3

05-29-2009, 10:03 PM

Nah, Jack Bauer helps them figure it out.

Even the military asked them to tone him down, Bauer is just A nicely dressed gestapo clone,

mikekerr3

05-29-2009, 10:04 PM

You must have an interesting definition of freedom.

I really hope he was joking or just temporarily ran out of lithium:eek:

Paradox

05-29-2009, 10:33 PM

Just a note, Mike...."she".

Nick Soapdish

05-30-2009, 09:34 AM

You are misreading me.

I doubt there are many (keyword "Many") who can deny the crimes at Abu Ghraib.

I've seen a lot of pundits and bloggers claim that what happened there wasn't that bad and that it wasn't widespread. Rush Limbaugh is a prominent example and he's a pretty important voice to the Republicans.

dupont2005

05-30-2009, 12:06 PM

thespianphryne

05-30-2009, 03:48 PM

Also I would like to put in my support for the plan to end world hunger: babies.

Paradox

05-30-2009, 09:51 PM

Sounds like a modest proposal (http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html). :evilsmile:

mikekerr3

05-30-2009, 10:38 PM

they call it water splashing. it is funny to see the youtube vids of am radio douchebags that decided to get waterboarded to prove it isn't torture last a whole 7 seconds before changing their minds on the issue

I actually respect the guy for admitting he was wrong. That puts him ahead of many people.

Serik

05-31-2009, 11:19 AM

It takes some balls to be voluntarily waterboarded and then admit that your were totally wrong for claiming it was not torture.

Put another way: if someone claims that a given action is not torturous, how can they be certain without experiencing it first hand? Without the benefit of experience, I would err on the side that says simulated drowning by waterboarding is torture. The burden of proof is on the assholes who claim it is not (and then proceed to employ the most despicable form of doublespeak by terming it "enhanced interrogation")

FunkyGreenJerusalem

05-31-2009, 07:41 PM

A 100, infecting someone with typhus repeatedly, then giving alm,ost enough medication to treat the disease. Infecting childen with Rabies and tennus then vivisecting them to study the effects on a living body, Both of those were actually carried out by Unit 731of the Japanese Army during the second world War on Chinese civilians.

A 50 would be the old KGB trick of feeding someone an inch at a time into a furnace feet first. Or the Apache bit with an anthill and wet rawhide. Or the trick od staking someone out in the sun after having cut off their eyelids.

Well then this is a lot closer to a fifty than you are ranking it.

Oh, and remember this was done by the 'good guys'.

But shit, you consider it a '2'?
Then you should be happy to have it released - 'see, this is all we did'.
Hopefully, that's all they'll do to your troops when captured too - I hope not, but if it's only a two, you can't really complain.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

05-31-2009, 07:47 PM

The entire point of his comparison was to provoke a Knee jerk Emotional response...

No it wasn't - it was to cite a precedent of photos of horrific things done to people being released to get the reality of it out and put people off the idea of it happening again.
(Th 'Hitler's got the right idea' sentiment got turned around with those pics).
I was using a comparison of war crime with lots of photos, to war crime with lots of photos.
I'd have compared it to the photo of the naked young girl napalmed in Vietnam, but that was released by the press, not the government (and the press weren't invited back like that to the next few wars).
I'm not even sure where I appeal to the emotions in that post, apart from the part where I lay out what happened to an innocent man, taking from a doco I saw (which won the academy award) - but that was in response to a different post, in an attempt to highlight that even if it is a two, it's not good enough behavior, and that innocent people are getting caught up in it.
As I said, I'd assumed the adult were talking.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

05-31-2009, 07:49 PM

just swung me towards being in favour of showing the photos. Let's have it known exactly what people are defending when they say "do what was to be done".

Shit, if most saw the released photos - the one's they don't show on the news, the actual photos where bad stuff is happening (it was worse than making a nudie human pyramid) - then they'd change their tune.
I'm 99% certain that those here saying this is okay, haven't seen more than was put on the news.

mikekerr3

05-31-2009, 08:31 PM

Well then this is a lot closer to a fifty than you are ranking it.

Oh, and remember this was done by the 'good guys'.

But shit, you consider it a '2'?
Then you should be happy to have it released - 'see, this is all we did'.
Hopefully, that's all they'll do to your troops when captured too - I hope not, but if it's only a two, you can't really complain.

I will be happy to have it released. I want it released pretty badly myself.

I think even a 1 on that scale deserves forever in prison. It's hjust on a subjective (that's all any of US have ) i put it at about a two. If all you body parts are attached and you have any sembklence f sanity I can't put it above a 10, on any torture scale. But a two is god-awful behavior and deserves harsh punishment of all involved.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

05-31-2009, 08:41 PM

I dunno man, on the released stuff you can see a battered and bruised man crying being forced to masturbate whilst they stand around abusing him.
You go through that sort of shit every night for an extended period - throw in the keep you awake positions and noise being blared all day - sanity is going to be a loose concept for a while, at least.

dupont2005

05-31-2009, 08:49 PM

I will be happy to have it released. I want it released pretty badly myself.

I think even a 1 on that scale deserves forever in prison. It's hjust on a subjective (that's all any of US have ) i put it at about a two. If all you body parts are attached and you have any sembklence f sanity I can't put it above a 10, on any torture scale. But a two is god-awful behavior and deserves harsh punishment of all involved.

usually the whole point of torture is to not inflict too much physical damage, just pain and suffering. that way you don't have to worry about your victim dying on you, and the torture can continue indefinitely.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

05-31-2009, 08:50 PM

usually the whole point of torture is to not inflict too much physical damage, just pain and suffering. that way you don't have to worry about your victim dying on you, and the torture can continue indefinitely.

And yet some did...

section 8

06-01-2009, 02:13 AM

No it wasn't - it was to cite a precedent of photos of horrific things done to people being released to get the reality of it out and put people off the idea of it happening again.
(Th 'Hitler's got the right idea' sentiment got turned around with those pics).
I was using a comparison of war crime with lots of photos, to war crime with lots of photos.
and yet, you went directly to the comparison to Nazis.
Again, the comparison (aside from fulfilling Godwin's law) was really weak at best, for the reasons I gave before.

The Halocaust photos were an accurate depiction of the goings on in Nazi Germany, as well as Hitlers true purpose.

The crimes depicted in these photos were in clear violation of the law, the Geneva Conventions, as well the UCMJ.

nothing about them should reflect on America as a whole, as these acts were illegal according to our own laws, and committed by soldiers who are now prisoners themselves.

As I said, I'd assumed the adult were talking.

You don't feed me, You don't fuck me, I could really care less what you think of me.

Save your snide comments for someone who actually values your opinion.

dupont2005

06-01-2009, 02:27 AM

nothing about them should reflect on America as a whole, as these acts were illegal according to our own laws, and committed by soldiers who are now prisoners themselves.

they should very much reflect the bush administration, who supported the opinion that they were not illegal at all for the past 8 years. and the 40% or so of americans that agree with that opinion

section 8

06-01-2009, 06:11 AM

they should very much reflect the bush administration, who supported the opinion that they were not illegal at all for the past 8 years. and the 40% or so of americans that agree with that opinion

Agreed, but it won't, not to the Arabic nations that already see us as "evil", and making these photos public would only hurt the already strained relations between the US and Arabic/Islamic nations.

Charles RB

06-01-2009, 07:14 AM

Shit, if most saw the released photos - the one's they don't show on the news, the actual photos where bad stuff is happening (it was worse than making a nudie human pyramid) - then they'd change their tune.
I'm 99% certain that those here saying this is okay, haven't seen more than was put on the news.

The last time I saw stuff they didn't show on the news*, it was part of a Channel 4 thing on Iraq War footage that wasn't used. I got to see a charred human corpse lying on a road and severed feet. And later, thanks to the Internet, someone with a bullethole in their head.

If it's not on the news, it's fuck-horrible. I can't blame people for not searching it out. I can blame them for pretending that was it and it wasn't bad.

* Aside from the time I Google imaged "white phospherous" to double-check it looked like a weapon being shown in BBC News photos. I realised the error three seconds in and hurriedly backspaced before I could properly notice what I was looking at.

Nick Soapdish

06-01-2009, 07:48 AM

Agreed, but it won't, not to the Arabic nations that already see us as "evil", and making these photos public would only hurt the already strained relations between the US and Arabic/Islamic nations.

So covering up the evidence is going to convince them that we don't do things like that?

There is already a lot of information out there about the photos and what went on in Abu Ghraib. A lot of it is just rumor and unsubstantiated, but when the US can't clamp down and let people know what really went on, a lot of people are going to be willing to believe the worst. Especially since any prosecutions for those criminal acts have been very low profile making it look like we aren't punishing anyone over it.

mikekerr3

06-01-2009, 08:49 AM

Agreed, but it won't, not to the Arabic nations that already see us as "evil", and making these photos public would only hurt the already strained relations between the US and Arabic/Islamic nations.

I am pretty suere that nothing in those pjhoto';s is half as bad as the what the Arab street supposes is in those photo's.

The anger on the street could be mollified quite a bit with the release of multiple Indictments at the same time as those photo's are releases. With the sexual assault chargers/rape being charged as such under the UCMJ. The penalties there are far harsher that in a civilian court. Life imprisonment without parole is fine, too bad the took the gallows of the punishment list recently.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-01-2009, 07:54 PM

and yet, you went directly to the comparison to Nazis.
Again, the comparison (aside from fulfilling Godwin's law) was really weak at best, for the reasons I gave before.

You haven't given reasons - you said it was the actions of several rogue soldiers, and wasn't state sponsored - and yet it was.

Other than that you just crow on about Godwin - ignoring that in my initial post I stated why the comparison was made - as other posters have.
I didn't really think that long about it except as an example of uncensored gruesome photos being released.

The Halocaust photos were an accurate depiction of the goings on in Nazi Germany, as well as Hitlers true purpose.

Actually, they were evidence of what went on in the concentration camps - many Germans from in the country at the time maintain they were ignorant to the horrors that were being carried out in the camps.
Those photos were an accurate record of what happened in those camps, these photos are an accurate depiction of what happened in Abu Ghraib, and other prisons around the world.

The crimes depicted in these photos were in clear violation of the law, the Geneva Conventions, as well the UCMJ.
As are the Abu Ghraib photos.

nothing about them should reflect on America as a whole, as these acts were illegal according to our own laws, and committed by soldiers who are now prisoners themselves.

Actually, that this happened does reflect on the country, and the times, as a whole.

Coincidentally, only two of the soldiers who took part in any of the acts are still in prison.
The majority of the others are already off, or were cleared.
This of course only affects those who were on duty, clearly bypassing the fact that there is strong evidence they were encouraged from higher up the military chain to act this way.

Also, there was a prisoner who died in custody, Manadel al-Jamadi - he was a suspect, never charged (not even actually logged) - whose death was ruled a homicide.
No one has been charged for that one.

You don't feed me, You don't fuck me, I could really care less what you think of me.

Save your snide comments for someone who actually values your opinion.

I call you a child and you feel the need to point out I don't fuck you?
Charming.

If you can't see that a comparison made as to why photos need to be released is within the bounds of conversation, and not an attack, nor an automatic fail, just because of the word 'holocaust', then you'll probably feel like you are being talked down to.
Doubly so if you just avoid any challenge to your convictions you don't have an easy answer for.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-01-2009, 07:59 PM

Agreed, but it won't, not to the Arabic nations that already see us as "evil", and making these photos public would only hurt the already strained relations between the US and Arabic/Islamic nations.

They already see you as evil - as has already been discussed - they don't actually need an excuse to hate you, they are doing pretty well with those on their own.
Transparency is the only option to stop that - acknowledging, in full, what was done, and vowing not to allow it again.
If you want to prove the point - that democracy is right, and that their way is wrong, this is the only way to go.
Yes, it is a harder way to go, but that was chosen when this sort of behavior was condoned - not when it was made known.

The last time I saw stuff they didn't show on the news*, it was part of a Channel 4 thing on Iraq War footage that wasn't used. I got to see a charred human corpse lying on a road and severed feet. And later, thanks to the Internet, someone with a bullethole in their head.

If it's not on the news, it's fuck-horrible. I can't blame people for not searching it out. I can blame them for pretending that was it and it wasn't bad.

I totally agree - it's nothing you want to see.
But if people are going to say it's okay, and it should be allowed, then they should make themselves fully aware of what they are supporting - it's not like it is in 24.

Charles RB

06-02-2009, 06:35 AM

But if people are going to say it's okay, and it should be allowed, then they should make themselves fully aware of what they are supporting

I certainly don't want to see anyone support using white phosperous in an urban area if they haven't had a good hard look at the photo of the mother screaming her head off because her baby's been burnt.

Adam C

06-02-2009, 10:08 AM

nothing about them should reflect on America as a whole, as these acts were illegal according to our own laws, and committed by soldiers who are now prisoners themselves.

I don't get your point. Funky never said anything about whether or not the photos should reflect on the United States of America as a whole, merely that they should be revealed in order to put people off from thinking that torture is a good idea.

Again, the comparison (aside from fulfilling Godwin's law) was really weak at best, for the reasons I gave before.

The Halocaust photos were an accurate depiction of the goings on in Nazi Germany, as well as Hitlers true purpose.

And what? Photos taken of acts of torture in Abu-Gharib aren't an accurate depiction of things going on inside that prison?

section 8

06-02-2009, 05:38 PM

I call you a child and you feel the need to point out I don't fuck you?
Charming.
I was merely pointing out that you do not meet the criteria of someone whose approval I seek.

What I do find interesting is that while you insist on calling me a "child" it was you who immediately resorted to juvenile name calling when presented an opinion in opposition to your own.
Charming.

mgs

06-02-2009, 06:07 PM

I suspect that rape has been a part of every war. That doesn't make it any less disgusting.
Definitely. Hell even our own soldiers rape each other. Not to sound trite about it, but the quote, 'war is hell', is quite true.

We in today's 'civilized' society like to think people are not so base and barbaric like our ancestors, but they are obviously disillusioned.

they call it water splashing. it is funny to see the youtube vids of am radio douchebags that decided to get waterboarded to prove it isn't torture last a whole 7 seconds before changing their minds on the issue
Who were these people? I've heard Olbermann calling Beck out on this, but who were the radio guys? Thanks.

On the op, while I don't have any desire to see these disgusting acts in film. I 'm not sure how I feel about them being released. While I feel, like others, they are disgusting enough to warrant investigation and arrests and penalties, keeping them locked up for a little while might be better than just releasing them immediately. Though I do feel they should be made public, eventually, in a few years time. I feel the pictures need to be protected, but the people who tortured, not at all.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-02-2009, 06:23 PM

I was merely pointing out that you do not meet the criteria of someone whose approval I seek.

What I do find interesting is that while you insist on calling me a "child" it was you who immediately resorted to juvenile name calling when presented an opinion in opposition to your own.
Charming.

No I didn't.
And I haven't - read the thread, I'm happily discussing it with people who have an entirely different viewpoint on the board.

I talked to you as a child, because only a child would run around citing 'Godwin's Law' and shouting 'FAIL', when presented with a comparison which actually fit the bill and I stand by - Holocaust photos were released, in mass, to show what happened, and helped to make people understand that this can't be allowed to happen again.
Abu Ghraib photos should be released in full to to show what happened, and to help make people understand that this can't be allowed to happen again.
One is not the other, yet both are war crimes.
Name another war crime we have photos of, and replace Holocaust with it.

Then, go back to my last post in response to you, and focus on the actual points, not the final paragraph responding to your comments on me personally - straw men are boring.
Particularly the part knocking down your argument that those responsible are paying the price - it puts a rather large whole in the argument.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-02-2009, 06:25 PM

On the op, while I don't have any desire to see these disgusting acts in film. I 'm not sure how I feel about them being released. While I feel, like others, they are disgusting enough to warrant investigation and arrests and penalties, keeping them locked up for a little while might be better than just releasing them immediately. Though I do feel they should be made public, eventually, in a few years time. I feel the pictures need to be protected, but the people who tortured, not at all.

They have been kept up for a little while.
It's been five years since the abuses began in that prison, three since the military started to act on them.
All bar two of the people charged have been released.
How much longer do you feel they need to sit in a vault?

mgs

06-02-2009, 09:25 PM

They have been kept up for a little while.
It's been five years since the abuses began in that prison, three since the military started to act on them.
All bar two of the people charged have been released.
How much longer do you feel they need to sit in a vault?
eh, not much longer. but maybe until most if not all of the troops are back from this 'war'.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-02-2009, 09:59 PM

eh, not much longer. but maybe until most if not all of the troops are back from this 'war'.

Sorry - I don't see how a vague 'not longer', and until 'most if not all are back home' really applies years after it has happened, and 'Mission Accomplished' for this war happened before these abuses took place.

What reason is there not to release them now?
The cats really already out of the bag, and the released photos - not news photos, the others - are really enough to spread hate with.

Serik

06-02-2009, 10:31 PM

eh, not much longer. but maybe until most if not all of the troops are back from this 'war'.

So if the troops were not in Iraq or Afghanistan, the extremists and terrorists (extra pissed off after seeing these photos) would just huff and puff and not do anything? Or do you think that the troops provide an easy opportunity for retaliation, and without the troops the terrorists would not act?

If we stand for the same things that Saddam Hussein stood for, like rape, torture and other violations of human rights, then seriously, what was the point of invading? Huge waste of money if we all we are doing is changing the nationality of the rapists and torturers.

To take it a step further: what would be the point of the whole War on Terror if the terrorists can still intimidate us? Anyone who advocates withholding the photos for fear of reprisal is giving into the terrorists, letting them disrupt the legal system and rule of law in our country. Where does it stop? Oh, let's not do X because the terrorists might attack. If that mentality persists, then the War on Terror has truly failed.

carabas

06-03-2009, 01:11 AM

Definitely. Hell even our own soldiers rape each other. Not to sound trite about it, but the quote, 'war is hell', is quite true.To be fair to war, American soldiers (and other soldiers probably as well) are perfectly happy with raping others and themselves in peace time too.

section 8

06-03-2009, 01:18 AM

I talked to you as a child, because only a child would run around citing 'Godwin's Law' and shouting 'FAIL', when presented with a comparison which actually fit the bill and I stand by - Holocaust photos were released, in mass, to show what happened, and helped to make people understand that this can't be allowed to happen again.
Abu Ghraib photos should be released in full to to show what happened, and to help make people understand that this can't be allowed to happen again.
One is not the other, yet both are war crimes.
Name another war crime we have photos of, and replace Holocaust with it.
.

As they say "from the mouths of babes".

A better comparison would be (for starters) The introduction of news footage/cameras in Vietnam (which changed a LOT of peoples perception on the war) This is more accurate because of the many parallels between 'Nam and the current conflict in Iraq.

The Tiananmen Square Massacre would also qualify

You also seem to forget that the War on terrorism is on going, while the Halocaust photos of which you speak were not released until AFTER WWII had ended. The release of the photos at hand would be fine, once the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan were resolved respectively.

Also (as I said before) the scale is completely different the Halocaust was a systematic extermination of over SIX MILLION people, In other words it was Genocide. which has left Germany with a permanent stain on it's reputation.

Which brings me to your claims that the photos of the acts of Genocide during the Halocaust were a wake up call to "Help make people understand that this can't be allowed to happen again." However the genocide in Rwanda has been documented with photographs, but little was been done to prevent, discourage, or stop it.

Either way you we re comparing the illegal treatments of a relatively small number of Prisoners of War, to the systematic genocide (six million) of the Jewish civilians (including Women, Children, and the Elderly)

To put it in terms you can better understand: "you are comparing a lighting storm to a lightning bug"

and speaking as a member of a race that narrowly survived a systematic government sanctioned genocide, Thats fucked up.

section 8

06-03-2009, 01:27 AM

Charles RB

06-03-2009, 03:53 AM

All bar two of the people charged have been released.

Everyone except two guys has been released when there's photographs showing they did it?

wait, Australlia? You aren't even ON the damn boat!!!

They've got troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

mgs

06-03-2009, 01:46 PM

Sorry - I don't see how a vague 'not longer', and until 'most if not all are back home' really applies years after it has happened, and 'Mission Accomplished' for this war happened before these abuses took place.

What reason is there not to release them now?
fair enough.

but I dunno. I just think that releasing them to these emotionally charged times aren't going to help anyone. Yes, there should be punishments, but I'm ultimately still looking for peace, not fueling mob mentality.

So if the troops were not in Iraq or Afghanistan, the extremists and terrorists (extra pissed off after seeing these photos) would just huff and puff and not do anything? Or do you think that the troops provide an easy opportunity for retaliation, and without the troops the terrorists would not act?
No, who said they'd do nothing? And I'm not thinking about possibilities, but the reality as it is now. I am still a patriot of my country and definitely don't want to see harm come to my country's soldiers who did no wrong.

I was and am against the wars that Bush started and don't believe that our troops should be over there. I understand why people around the world would be angered about this, I know I am. But again, I see this as a 'fueling the fire' type thing, and I just think it would be best for everyone's sake, to get them out of the occupied places they should not be in the first place before letting the photos out.

To be fair to war, American soldiers (and other soldiers probably as well) are perfectly happy with raping others and themselves in peace time too.
Oh yeah, I'm aware. But this is one of those hot topics of the times.

section 8

06-03-2009, 02:18 PM

They've got troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

True, but no other connection. I doubt people like Aminijad would wave these pics around ranting about an "evil Australia"
fair enough.

but I dunno. I just think that releasing them to these emotionally charged times aren't going to help anyone. Yes, there should be punishments, but I'm ultimately still looking for peace, not fueling mob mentality.

And I'm not thinking about possibilities, but the reality as it is now. I am still a patriot of my country and definitely don't want to see harm come to my country's soldiers who did no wrong.
.

Well said, Even if these photos would serve well as a lesson to future generations, we still kinda have to stop killing each other first.

releasing these photos now would be like trying to put out a wild fire with napalm

and would seriously hinder Obama's efforts to get us out of this mess.

mikekerr3

06-03-2009, 05:59 PM

Translation: "the boat's already leaking... why not poke holes in it?"

wait, Australlia? You aren't even ON the damn boat!!!

Their people have died in the damned boat.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-03-2009, 07:33 PM

As they say "from the mouths of babes".

A better comparison would be (for starters) The introduction of news footage/cameras in Vietnam (which changed a LOT of peoples perception on the war) This is more accurate because of the many parallels between 'Nam and the current conflict in Iraq.

Not really a good one - the US government wasn't expecting the cameras to see what they saw, and the rules subsequently changed.

The Tiananmen Square Massacre would also qualify

That never happened.
Ask your own government.

You also seem to forget that the War on terrorism is on going, while the Halocaust photos of which you speak were not released until AFTER WWII had ended. The release of the photos at hand would be fine, once the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan were resolved respectively.

That's when they got the photos - you don't think they would have used them to motivate the US to go to war if they had them?

Also (as I said before) the scale is completely different the Halocaust was a systematic extermination of over SIX MILLION people, In other words it was Genocide. which has left Germany with a permanent stain on it's reputation.

Which brings me to your claims that the photos of the acts of Genocide during the Halocaust were a wake up call to "Help make people understand that this can't be allowed to happen again." However the genocide in Rwanda has been documented with photographs, but little was been done to prevent, discourage, or stop it.

I used a comparison of the photos being released by the government of a war crime - we all know what the Holocaust was, you seem to be the only one who has trouble using it in the context of a conversation about photos without having a yell and a scream.
Rwanda was documented, but not by another countries government, by the press.

Either way you we re comparing the illegal treatments of a relatively small number of Prisoners of War, to the systematic genocide (six million) of the Jewish civilians (including Women, Children, and the Elderly)

To put it in terms you can better understand: "you are comparing a lighting storm to a lightning bug"

and speaking as a member of a race that narrowly survived a systematic government sanctioned genocide, Thats fucked up.

I'm comparing photos of the two - not their content, that there are photos of the two.
Anything else is of your own.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-03-2009, 07:46 PM

Translation: "the boat's already leaking... why not poke holes in it?"

wait, Australlia? You aren't even ON the damn boat!!!

We were members of the 'coalition of the willing', and have troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and our troops have died over there.
None however, have been charged with war crimes.
Nice to see you've got your facts in order again.
Regardless of that, it doesn't effect my views on the matter whose government it was - the photos should be released, in full, or else your government is still covering up a war crime.

Funny you should mention Australia and boats though - at the start of the decade, our then PM John Howard, was campaigning for election, and part of it was him defending/pushing his policy to keep asylum seekers in camps in other countries so that they didn't have access to our courts (sound familiar?).
Around this time he released photos the military had taken of a an asylum boat sinking, which showed that they were throwing the children overboard to stay afloat.
This was a backhanded way of showing these people are monsters and we shouldn't want them.
He won the election.
Only, a few months after the election it came out that there were more photos, and that those shown had been misleading, and that no children were thrown overboard - and not only that, the PM had been informed of this.
The timeline (http://www.truthoverboard.com/story8.html) is here.
The government of course distanced itself, and despite a senate inquiry, nobody got in trouble for it.

So, although I think they should be released as the first part of an apology and making things right is a full admission of what happened, I also get very wary of photos that aren't released.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-03-2009, 07:46 PM

Everyone except two guys has been released when there's photographs showing they did it?

Of course, otherwise they start to argue that they were acting on their own and not doing what they were told.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-03-2009, 07:50 PM

True, but no other connection. I doubt people like Aminijad would wave these pics around ranting about an "evil Australia"

We've got enough nations nearby hating us as it is - right next door to us.
As I said, they don't need photos to celebrate the 'Bali bombers'.

Well said, Even if these photos would serve well as a lesson to future generations, we still kinda have to stop killing each other first.

releasing these photos now would be like trying to put out a wild fire with napalm

and would seriously hinder Obama's efforts to get us out of this mess.

No it wouldn't - it would help.
'Here's everything we've done, we're passing new laws and regulations and checks to stop it ever happening again'.
Goes a lot further than a 'This won't happen again' speech - especially as they won't show everything that happened.

J. Robb

06-03-2009, 09:07 PM

You also seem to forget that the War on terrorism is on going, while the Halocaust photos of which you speak were not released until AFTER WWII had ended. The release of the photos at hand would be fine, once the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan were resolved respectively.
To be fair, WWII had the advantage of not being imaginary.

Charles RB

06-04-2009, 04:20 AM

[QUOTE=FunkyGreenJerusalem;9038213]
Funny you should mention Australia and boats though - at the start of the decade, our then PM John Howard, was campaigning for election, and part of it was him defending/pushing his policy to keep asylum seekers in camps in other countries so that they didn't have access to our courts (sound familiar?).[/'quote]

I don't remember his dodgy photo release, but I do remember that story.

And Private Eye having a cartoon of a white Australian holding up a sign saying "Immigrants Go Home", while an Aboriginie says to his mate "I wish we'd thought of that".

section 8

06-04-2009, 07:23 AM

I used a comparison of the photos being released by the government of a war crime - we all know what the Holocaust was, you seem to be the only one who has trouble using it in the context of a conversation about photos without having a yell and a scream.

I'm comparing photos of the two - not their content, that there are photos of the two.
Anything else is of your own.

I'm neither yelling nor screaming, but rather very calmly calling you on your bullshit.

your "war crimes are war crimes." logic is flawed, at best, and purposely naive at worst. Between abusing prisoners of war, and tossing babies into ovens, there is a subtle difference.

It is still very interesting that instead of any dozens of examples where photos have changed peoples perspectives of war/conflict to. You just so happen to pull the Halocaust photos out of your ass...

Can't possibly be because the Halocaust is one of the most inflammatory topics anyone could ever hope to work into any discussion, could it? ...No I'm sure it was just a coincidence. :rolleyes:

carabas

06-04-2009, 11:05 AM

What is this Halocaust you keep mentioning? Sounds like an ill-named chapter of a video game franchise.

king mob

06-04-2009, 12:39 PM

It is still very interesting that instead of any dozens of examples where photos have changed peoples perspectives of war/conflict to. You just so happen to pull the Halocaust photos out of your ass...

For god's sake, it's Holocaust. If you're going to miss Funky's point he was making at least spell it right.

Can't possibly be because the Halocaust is one of the most inflammatory topics anyone could ever hope to work into any discussion, could it? ...No I'm sure it was just a coincidence. :rolleyes:

No, go back, read what was said and then try again.

Athena Bast

06-04-2009, 12:45 PM

Jared

06-04-2009, 04:23 PM

To be fair, WWII had the advantage of not being imaginary.

Yup. Those people who hijack planes or set suicide/car bombs to kill civilians are all entirely fictional.

That's not to say that abuse of innocent people is justified. Or even that invading Iraq was a good idea. But can we please, please not pretend that there aren't real terrorists in the world who believe in killing innocent Americans, Israelis, Europeans, moderate Muslims, Muslims of other branches...hell pretty much anybody who disagrees with them.

You don't have to actually call it the War on Terror. Obama didn't, in his speech today. But he isn't so naive as to think there's nothing going on, so why are you?

As for the photos, if a proper investigation reveals it was a systemic problem, I could support releasing the photos at some point. Systemic is the key word there. Any large military action, hell any large military, is going to end up having some horrible things done. Just as every city has murders and rapes, but we don't publish all the crime scene photos. If, however, a city's police force was instituting a Murder/Rape policy, that'd be another matter.

Some people, I have no doubt, want to see the photos released for heartfelt reasons of free speech and accountability. Some, however, I have no doubt just want to see anything that makes America and especally the previous adminstration look even worse, consequences be damned.

dupont2005

06-04-2009, 05:00 PM

Yup. Those people who hijack planes or set suicide/car bombs to kill civilians are all entirely fictional.

when did america declare war on a specific enemy? declaring war on an abstract concept and using that to wave your dick around in any arab nation you see fit does not make the "war on terror" any less fictional. sure, there really are bullets flying and people dying, but there are no clear set objectives and no end in sight. you cannot end an idea or a form of guerrilla combat from being thought up in someones mind. not without lobotomizing everyone on the globe, that is the only real way to defeat "terrorism"

howyadoin

06-04-2009, 05:11 PM

For god's sake, it's Holocaust. If you're going to miss Funky's point he was making at least spell it right.I figured Halocaust was some mass videogame-related death.

mikekerr3

06-04-2009, 06:17 PM

Gitmo detainees and the like were not deemed prisoners of war but something like detained enemy combatants which was to allow Bush's government to circumvent the Geneva Convention.

Treaties we are signatory to. thus being binding law for the US. forbid that. The illegal Combatent" is a fever dream as far as standing in US or International law.

They just made up new rules without legal basis. The Geneva convention cover irregular and guerrilla forces very thoroughly, they have all the same rights as the regular forces of a combatant. they have to since in most of the work they are pretty much the norm in modern conflicts. it's armys versus irregular forces not army vs army. Hell, the very first parts of our own Revolution were fought just that way.

That status has the same legal weight as the idea that "if a president does it it's not illegal." Which in a legal sense is none.

mikekerr3

06-04-2009, 06:29 PM

Yup. Those people who hijack planes or set suicide/car bombs to kill civilians are all entirely fictional.

That's not to say that abuse of innocent people is justified. Or even that invading Iraq was a good idea. But can we please, please not pretend that there aren't real terrorists in the world who believe in killing innocent Americans, Israelis, Europeans, moderate Muslims, Muslims of other branches...hell pretty much anybody who disagrees with them.

You don't have to actually call it the War on Terror. Obama didn't, in his speech today. But he isn't so naive as to think there's nothing going on, so why are you?

As for the photos, if a proper investigation reveals it was a systemic problem, I could support releasing the photos at some point. Systemic is the key word there. Any large military action, hell any large military, is going to end up having some horrible things done. Just as every city has murders and rapes, but we don't publish all the crime scene photos. If, however, a city's police force was instituting a Murder/Rape policy, that'd be another matter.

Some people, I have no doubt, want to see the photos released for heartfelt reasons of free speech and accountability. Some, however, I have no doubt just want to see anything that makes America and especally the previous adminstration look even worse, consequences be damned.

Many of the people at Gitmo committed the crime of resisting an armed invasion of the country thy were in. If they have proof of terrorism they can try them but just shooting at Americans who had invaded their country was initially enough to get you sent to Gitmo.

Thetaditionallyeffective way to keep the rapist and murders that will be present in any large group in check, is for the military to throw them in the brig and forget thetre ever was a key. Forcible rape murder of prisoners and torture can and should gety them into A federal pen until they die. Having crime that the whole world now knows about go unpunished hurts us more than the picture ever could.

We barely even punished the criminals who hurt our country so badly at Abu Grabe, the most assuredly got Americans killed and harmed our cause and our nation. If treason was on effect not intent they would be traitors as it was they were some of the best friends Al Quiada ever had.

Just like With Lt. Calley we have lost the guts to enforce our own laws. Miltary hlaws are harsh and miltary courts are fair for practical reasons

J. Robb

06-04-2009, 06:48 PM

Nick Soapdish

06-04-2009, 07:14 PM

Yup. Those people who hijack planes or set suicide/car bombs to kill civilians are all entirely fictional.

That's not to say that abuse of innocent people is justified. Or even that invading Iraq was a good idea. But can we please, please not pretend that there aren't real terrorists in the world who believe in killing innocent Americans, Israelis, Europeans, moderate Muslims, Muslims of other branches...hell pretty much anybody who disagrees with them.

You don't have to actually call it the War on Terror. Obama didn't, in his speech today. But he isn't so naive as to think there's nothing going on, so why are you?

None of us are pretending that.

However, we are saying this is a great way to encourage more of them to keep on doing it.

As for the photos, if a proper investigation reveals it was a systemic problem, I could support releasing the photos at some point. Systemic is the key word there. Any large military action, hell any large military, is going to end up having some horrible things done. Just as every city has murders and rapes, but we don't publish all the crime scene photos. If, however, a city's police force was instituting a Murder/Rape policy, that'd be another matter.

Some people, I have no doubt, want to see the photos released for heartfelt reasons of free speech and accountability. Some, however, I have no doubt just want to see anything that makes America and especally the previous adminstration look even worse, consequences be damned.

There are currently two people locked up for these crimes. So I guess it's not systemic and they were just two very busy and sneaky guys.

Or possibly, we're just trying to bury it.

We have testimony from interrogators that it was widespread and we have memos from the defense department okaying it. Maybe, we're just holding on to them until we can finish the trials and do some justice. But right now, it looks like we're just covering our ass. And I can assure you that those that would be our enemies are assuming exactly that and telling anyone that will listen that what is "really" in those photos and they're making it as bad as possible. And they're the only voice because we refuse to stand up and prove otherwise which makes their argument a lot more persuasive.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-08-2009, 07:53 PM

I'm neither yelling nor screaming, but rather very calmly calling you on your bullshit.

your "war crimes are war crimes." logic is flawed, at best, and purposely naive at worst. Between abusing prisoners of war, and tossing babies into ovens, there is a subtle difference.

It is still very interesting that instead of any dozens of examples where photos have changed peoples perspectives of war/conflict to. You just so happen to pull the Halocaust photos out of your ass...

Can't possibly be because the Halocaust is one of the most inflammatory topics anyone could ever hope to work into any discussion, could it? ...No I'm sure it was just a coincidence. :rolleyes:

Yes it was - if I'd wanted to go an emotional card, I sure would have, but I didn't, so I didn't.

Name other photos governments released of war crimes and we'll use that as the example - I already said this - I can think of ones the press released and exposed cover ups, but no other of a government doing it... I used an example of photos being released to say why photos should be released.

Now, move past it son, because right now you are running on empty as to why they shouldn't be released.
You're attempts to 'fail' any argument I make because of a comparison of photos being released hasn't shut me up, and has been shot down by myself - I don't know how many times I can clarify why I said it - and by others who got what I was saying.

This sort of playing the game may work well in a conversation where dragging the topic down another line can work, but if you scroll back over this, people can see that your dodging any argument bar this one - the pics should be released, and thus far you've given no reason for them not to.

Now get back to the fact no one's been punished, the idea that how can you be sorry and moving on if you're still hiding what happened, what else are they trying to hide in the photos etc etc.
Rebuff those points instead of weaseling around with this one - or just don't bother playing.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-08-2009, 07:57 PM

I don't remember his dodgy photo release, but I do remember that story.

And Private Eye having a cartoon of a white Australian holding up a sign saying "Immigrants Go Home", while an Aboriginie says to his mate "I wish we'd thought of that".

The photos were a big part of justifying his policies, right at a time where national security got put on the table around the world.
Big clincher for the election - it backhandedly endorsed him 'Look what savages they are, we don't want people like that!'

Hilariously (I weep), at the next election he promised a bigger boost to medicare aid and rebates than the other side - odd for a right wing privatize happy fellow like him - and then ditched it after he won as new evidence showed they just couldn't fund it.
Never mind that it came out that he, the treasurer and the health minister all found out it couldn't be done just before the election - wouldn't have been done to 'cloud the issue' right before we went to the voting booth...

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-08-2009, 08:01 PM

No, go back, read what was said and then try again.

Actually, that might prove his point....

Much like with photos of the Holocaust - WHICH THIS IS EXACTLY LIKE BECAUSE THEY PUT BABIES IN OVENS, ROUNDED UP JEWS, GAYS, DISSENTERS AND THE DISABLED, AND THEN STARVED THEM, WORKED THEM AND KILLED THEM so that those responsible are held fully accountable for their actions, not just by us, but by future generations BECAUSE AMERIKKKA IS THE NEW NAZI REGIME
So that next time this is put on the table, those photos will be held up.
I AM NOT COMPARING THESE ARE EXACTLY THE SAME!

Iangould

06-08-2009, 10:08 PM

Translation: "the boat's already leaking... why not poke holes in it?"

wait, Australlia? You aren't even ON the damn boat!!!

Yeah apart from having troops serving in both Iraq and Afghanistan and losing around 150 civilians in the Bali bombings, what does Australia have to do with the War on Terror?

Iangould

06-08-2009, 10:14 PM

Many of the people at Gitmo committed the crime of resisting an armed invasion of the country thy were in.

And some committed the crime of being in the wrong place at the wrong time without bribe money to pay the Ex-Taliban fighters who are now America's plucky freedom-loving Afghan allies.

Iangould

06-08-2009, 10:23 PM

Before reading this thread I was inclined to the view that while the acts depicted in the photos should be investigated, there was no need to actually release the pictures.

Having read the thread, I'm coming around to the view that yes the photos should probably be released.

A few thoughts:

1. Were any of the US personnel charged over Gitmo charged with rape? If not, the whole "the guilty parties have already been punished" argument pretty much collapses.

2. This is why I still waver over the release of the pictures. Pause for a second and consider the victims. Rape is a traumatic experience. Imagine how much worse it must be for people from a culture that sets huge value of female "virtue" and despises homosexuality. If the individual victims can be recognised it, their lives could be at risk. Even if their identity is disguised, they'll know that millions of people around the world have seen what happened to them. fro that matter, if the individuals can't be identified then potentially all the prisoners from Abu Ghraib are being put at risk.

Jared

06-10-2009, 05:52 PM

when did america declare war on a specific enemy? declaring war on an abstract concept and using that to wave your dick around in any arab nation you see fit does not make the "war on terror" any less fictional. sure, there really are bullets flying and people dying, but there are no clear set objectives and no end in sight. you cannot end an idea or a form of guerrilla combat from being thought up in someones mind. not without lobotomizing everyone on the globe, that is the only real way to defeat "terrorism"

I actually agree that "War on Terror" is a stupid label to put on a policy initative. Terror is a method, a concept, a meme. It can never be totally defeated, anymore than crime can be. I guess it sounds snappier for the speeches than "War against Al-Quaeda, other extremise islamic groups, and certain rogue states." But I thought it was a bad choice of words, even when it started.