Posted on 08/23/2005 7:07:51 AM PDT by Jay777
There's a new batch of photos from Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, and these are reportedly far worse than the sickening originals. Naturally, the Pentagon is trying to block their release.
The ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in October 2003 to make public 87 photographs and four videos depicting prisoner abuse in Iraq. The Pentagon originally argued that releasing the images would violate the Geneva Convention rights of the detainees; a supreme irony considering that the US originally denied these very prisoners Geneva Convention protections. The ACLU agreed that the Pentagon could black out "identifying characteristics," but a federal judge in New York ruled last week that DoD must explain publicly why it's concealing the images. "By and large, I ruled for public disclosure," said US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein. A final ruling is expected on August 30.
In court proceedings, General Richard Myers argued that releasing the pictures and videos would give aid to the enemy: boosting Al Qaeda recruitment, destabilizing governments in Iraq and Afghanistan and inciting riots throughout the Muslim world. But a number of high-ranking officers and civil libertarians countered by noting that much of what Myers predicts is already occurring on the ground, fueled in large measure by past and present US behavior. "The attacks will continue regardless of whether the photos and tapes are released," testified former US Army Colonel Michael Pheneger. Myers, he said, "mistakes propaganda for motivation."
Last May members of Congress sat in a dark room and viewed the images. Their responses begged for further elaboration. "It was disgusting," said Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson. "There were new ones that we hadn't seen before, and they're bad. I mean there's no doubt about that." Bad enough to show to Congress apparently, but not the American people.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
I'd like to ask the ACLU what the point of this is? Abu Ghraib has been investigated, the guilty have been punished - it's over. In my opinion, the only point is to get more anti-Bush and anti-American mileage out of this incident, to inflame Islamist passions once again and get more Americans and Iraqis killed. The ACLU sickens me.
How about demanding some context. Take the worst of the Abu Gharib photos and surround it with the context: Saddam and the Terrorists behading and torture photos ---the ones the mainstream press are censoring because making people vomit in their living rooms is not good for advertising sales.
Gosh, if you didn't know better, one would think all these left wing groups had an agenda....
Which is precisely why the subversive, anti-American ACLU would want to do it in the first place.
Yeah....but this is one of the tactics the left will use to push Able Danger out of the media. Only hearings will prevent that from happening.
JEDI.
While they are releasing pictures do you think that they could release the Vince Foster photos at the same time?
Somebody at the Pentagon needs to take one for the team and destroy these pictures.
It is truly sad that the ACLU can only get Americans to hate the war by having more dead American troops. That is just sick.
It also must mean that we are winning the war if they have to change the status quo for Americans to hate the war.
"Abu Ghraib has been investigated, the guilty have been punished - it's over. "
Exactly. These photos are from the same CD that a military whistleblower sent. It would be different if there was new evidence of new wrongdoing, but these photos are evidence in cases that have already been concluded. Therefore there is no public policy good in publishing them.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
The Pentagon originally argued that releasing the images would violate the Geneva Convention rights of the detainees; a supreme irony considering that the US originally denied these very prisoners Geneva Convention protections. The ACLU agreed that the Pentagon could black out "identifying characteristics," but a federal judge in New York ruled last week that DoD must explain publicly why it's concealing the images. "By and large, I ruled for public disclosure," said US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein.
But the article doesn't explain why the argument was rejected.
The judge says he ruled for public disclosure, but it seems to me that there are a thousand other things not being disclosed to the public at this time, so why disclose this? What's so special about this? especially when these pictures are sure to hurt the effort in Iraq?
This notion of the public's "right to know" seems especially weak under the circumstances. It's putting a point of philosophy, one that's full of gray areas and contested boundaries, against the iron-clad fact that this will disrupt things in the middle east, right at this fragile moment when the Iraq constitution is coming together.
Which is the point General Myers makes:
In court proceedings, General Richard Myers argued that releasing the pictures and videos would give aid to the enemy: boosting Al Qaeda recruitment, destabilizing governments in Iraq and Afghanistan and inciting riots throughout the Muslim world.
Which was countered with the dopey argument that, yeah well, that stuff's already happening:
But a number of high-ranking officers and civil libertarians countered by noting that much of what Myers predicts is already occurring on the ground, fueled in large measure by past and present US behavior. "The attacks will continue regardless of whether the photos and tapes are released," testified former US Army Colonel Michael Pheneger. Myers, he said, "mistakes propaganda for motivation."
For some reason the thought that the new pictures might make things worse never occurs to these people. And this Colonel Pheneger, when he says Myers "mistakes propaganda for motivation", forgets that the main purpose of propaganda is to motivate.
Outside of this, the only arguments I see in the article in favor of releasing the images are 1) the fuzzy notion of freedom of information and public awareness, 2) that it's "ironic" that the Pentagon would make an argument based on the GC to against releasing photos that show GC violations, 3) that if the Congress sees the pictures, the public should see the pictures
"...Bad enough to show to Congress apparently, but not the American people..."
and 4)
Far from endangering American national security, the release of the horrific images could provide new impetus to the stalled Congressional investigations into prisoner abuse, and the Pentagon's failure to hold any high-ranking officers accountable for Abu Ghraib. An independent counsel with subpoena power is what's needed most right now to prevent images like these in the future.
which = Get Bush! of course (and isn't that last sentence about "preventing images like these in the future" just the kind of tendentious crapola that the Left seems to specialize in these days?).
But I don't seen how any of these reasonably outweigh the fact that releasing the images would hurt the various efforts we're making in the middle east.
Thanks for the summary. I'm glad to see that these issues were at least vetted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.