Should Obama Release These Photos?Follow

Looks like Red asked the question I just posted. The crimes were committed, soldiers are being tried. Do you think their superiors, if they knew about the abuse and/or ordered it, should be tried?

As for the second part, what do you consider "public display?" I mean, would written accounts of the abuses be allowed? How do you get transparency if no information is allowed? My point is that while written accounts are useful for describing what was happening, pictures or video of those events are just for shock value (outrage ****) and serve no practical purpose. I think the US public should have an understanding of negative events, but they don't need pictures of it.

I'll bet those prisoners are too. The males, at least.

I didn't realize that so many NYPD officers were stationed in Abu Ghraib...

Holy ****, I agree with katie. Someone shoot me. Or her.

Her, preferably.

And ok Samira, I admit it, you might've been right after all.

I'm not convinced the penalty for soldiers who refuse to rape prisoners is a long stint in jail.

No, my bad, it's me that totally misunderstood.



Yeah, but in that case they're not really "good", are they? Intentions are nice, but really, you are what you do.

If the Bush administration officials that ordered the torture/non-torture of Gitmo detainees aren't going to be charged after the fact, I don't think these soldiers should be either. I mean, it's not like this stuff that was going on wasn't known or acknowledged by the superiors. Hell, they may even have had a mandate to humiliate them as much as possible.

If these pictures are real-- and at this point it has not been conclusively proven that that is the case --then the perpetrators need to be prosecuted as war criminals to fullest extent of the law, and that includes everyone up the chain of command.

As a former member of the military it sickens me that such acts were not only committed, but condoned. Mind you, PoWs don't have the same rights as US citizens in my eyes, but there is still a standard to which we must demand each and every one of us must adhere.

If that causes distress among our allies, then so be it. Such acts are wrong and must be clearly shown to be not something we will so much as even sweep under the rug. Now, does that mean we should release such photos? I would posit you, do we release photos of victims of crimes, such as rape victimes? No, we don't unless the person agrees. And that should be the threshold to which we hold or release the photos as well.

Painful indeed, if true.

Totem

I haven't heard anything about waterboarding. Besides, this isn't Gitmo, it's Abu Gharib. I do see your point: how far do we take it? Is just "knowing that harsh interrogation actions are considered" enough to prosecute? I think it's pretty obvious to say no. If you're the one who orders the harsh interrogation tactics, then it gets dicey. Rumsfeld did that, but there's still not a consensus on whether or not it counted as torture.

In this case, I highly doubt Rumsfeld said "humiliate and rape inmates." I doubt he even heard of that. I DO think he said something like "get them to talk." Then it was up to the subordinates to carry out the actions, and if the flak ever came back to him, he could say "I didn't tell them to do THAT!" And if they didn't get the inmates to talk, then the subordinate would be moved to the front lines, or have their career ended, or some such. So one might say these subordinates were damned no matter what... but the lesser of two evils would be to ignore your insane boss and keep your humanity.

In the end, those in charge of the abuse and those who received regular news of it but encouraged or did nothing to stop it are at fault. Rumsfeld is a schmuck, but he probably only heard results, not methods. Same with anyone in Congress. Once you go lower in the chain, eventually you'll find someone who heard about it and did nothing or told no one. The stories of the abuse will stop at their desks... and that's exactly where the blame should end as well.

You want to try the whole legislative branch for war crimes? Good luck with that.

It's pretty fucking disgusting that this ever happened. To be honest, I'm torn.

I understand why he doesn't want to release them. He obviously made his initial promise back when he hadn't seen the photographs himself. Now he's reconsidered based on the obscenity and violence contained in the photos, because releasing them will fuel anti-American sentiment. That's understandable. I would've tried to do the same thing in his position.

BUT.

To be perfectly honest, everyone knows what the pictures contain. Everyone knows, now, that soldiers were raping prisoners at Abu Ghraib. The damage has been done. He refuses to release the pictures because it will incite people to violence against American soldiers, but people already know. Physically seeing the pictures, now that their content and existence has been confirmed, won't make them any angrier. The damage has been done, and so long as the administration withholds them, America looks even worse.

The best thing he can do right now, politically speaking, is to find those responsible and fucking trial the **** out of them. Put them in jail for decades. Make a big media fuss about criminals being brought to justice and how America cannot condone rape against prisoners. The absolute worst thing he can do right now is try to sweep this under the carpet.

Yes it will.

Probably wouldn't accomplish much on their own, but its as good as any place to start. (I'm not sure what you mean about the malnourished child tho??)

I'm not talking about 'impact'. I'm talking about letting people know what goes on. Less of the flag-waving, more of the grim reality. Less heroic tales of derring-do, more pictures of burnt dismembered disembowelled corpses (from both sides).

Throughout history, people have been sucked into wars through propaganda that shows the enemy as sub-human and deserving of annihalation. Unworthy of 'our' sympathy.

When you get up close and see that they are exactly like us, its a lot harder to convince your populalation to believe that they need to be killed on an industrial scale. To make us safe.

Show the reality as it is. The bodies, the limbs, the exploded children, the rapes and the torture.

Until that happens, how can anyone who hasn't been there, possibly make an informed decision on wether they 'support' the war or the troops, or pass judgement on what 'war' is, or the people who fight it, or the people who start them.

If you as an individual are content to allow the 'authorities' to tell you and show you as much as you need to know about an event as they feel you can handle, then good luck with your happy ignorance. It might feel nice and safe with your head in the sand, but surely you can't argue that thats a good position to be taking decisions and forming opinions from.

Edited, Jun 1st 2009 9:32am by paulsol