Posted on 09/29/2005 11:51:25 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
The “Loose Lips Sink Ships” Case
(The information for this comment comes initially from an Associated Press story run on Yahoo News on 29 September, 2005.)
US District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein in New York has just ruled in a case brought by the ACLU that 87 photographs and four videotapes concerning Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq must be released by the federal government. In his 50-page decision, the judge asserted that the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan "do not need pretexts for their barbarism."
He added in his opinion that, "Our nation does not surrender to blackmail, and fear of blackmail is not a legally sufficient argument to prevent us from performing a statutory command.... Indeed, the freedoms that we champion are as important to our success in Iraq and Afghanistan as the guns and missiles with which our troops are armed.”
(Judge Hellerstein was appointed by President Clinton, in 1998.)
In accord with usual practice, the order of this judge to release these materials will probably be stayed until his decision can be reviewed on appeal. Though the government has not announced an appeal, that seems nearly certain.
It is hard to overstate how bad this decision is. It is hard to say where the judge’s idea that the issue in this case concerned “blackmail.” It does not. It concerns the impending murders of both foreigners and Americans as a direct result of his decision, unless it is reversed on appeal.
Consider that after the initial photographs of abuses at Abu Ghraib were published, there were religiously-inspired riots in a number of Islamic nations. Also, there were increased attacks on Americans and their allies mostly in Iraq. Dozens of people died. Consider the recent false story in Newsweek which engendered riots mostly in Pakistan, in which dozens were killed. Newsweek withdrew its story about “copies of the Koran being flushed down toilets at the Guantanamo prison” within two days.
Newsweek could have tested the story by attempting to flush a copy of its own magazine (much smaller than the Koran) down one of its own toilets. But it did not. And its retraction was not able to resurrect the dead.
Or, consider the slogan on posters during World War II, “Loose lips sink ships.” Early in the war, German submarines were operating right off the East Coast. In the major ports of Boston, New York, Baltimore and Norfolk, there were easily thousands of people who worked on the docks and who knew when the Liberty ships (and others) were sailing for Britain as the lifeline on which that nation depended. There were German spies in the US who would have transmitted the sailing times of ships if they were published in the newspapers – and publication of sailing times and names of ships was routine in peacetime, in all of those ports.
The equation was clear. If the German submarines got the information on what ships were sailing when, more of the merchant ships would have been sunk in the North Atlantic with all hands lost, and the vital cargoes denied to the beleaguered citizens of Britain.
All this seems overwhelmingly obvious. Why recite it here? Because this judge is apparently ignorant of such obvious facts. He is willing to condemn perhaps hundreds of foreigners and dozens of Americans to die because he has no clue that the First Amendment does not require the forced publication of deadly information in time of war.
The ACLU, of course, hopes that many more deaths will result as a result of the release of these graphic images. The burned and broken bodies of foreigners in their nations will help to turn the governments of those nations against the US. And the deaths of more Americans will help turn Americans against the policies set by their Administration and Congress.
This is not, as the ACLU posits the case, a need for public knowledge in the US. Americans are well aware of the abuses at Abu Ghraib. The last of the American soldiers charged with these abuses is on trial right now. Most of those previously charged with those abuses have either been convicted at trial, or have pleaded guilty. And the commanding general of that prison has been relieved of her duties. All this has been well, and properly, reported in the American press.
No legitimate First Amendment purpose will be served by the release of more Abu Ghraib images. If the terrible decision of this one judge is not reversed on appeal, President Bush should issue a direct order, as Commander in Chief at a time of declared war, that this information not be released. The Supreme Court is highly unlikely, based on its few decisions concerning the wartime powers of the President, to strike down such an order today.
One way or the other, this decision by this judge will not stand. The sad part is how far we have descended since WW II. All the newspapers then understood that information which would get people killed should not be published. The editors of the newspapers in the port cities certainly had the ability to find out what ships were sailing, and when. They voluntarily chose not to print that information.
Today we have some newspapers, magazines, TV stations and networks which will immediately print or publish this information, regardless of the fact that people will be murdered as a result. Today, we have the ACLU prepared to try to force this information into the public domain. And today, we have a federal judge who is willing to play a critical role in getting this information published, and causing these people to be killed.
Today, unfortunately, we need a new wartime poster. It should show a picture of Judge Hellerstein, with the following slogan:
“Loose Judges Kill Americans”
John_Armor@aya.yale.edu
However, this one case write-up is in laymen's language, and will probably make your blood boil as it did mine. So I post one-third of this month's column here, for your interest.
Those with a taste for constitutional law, and a concern for what the ACLU and its supporters are doing to the Constitution, are welcome to click the link above and read as much as you care (or can tolerate) on that subject, on the subpage entitled, "ACLU Watch."
John / Billybob
US District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein in New York has just ruled in a case brought by the ACLU that 87 photographs and four videotapes concerning Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq must be released by the federal government. In his 50-page decision, the judge asserted that the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan "do not need pretexts for their barbarism."
He added in his opinion that, "Our nation does not surrender to blackmail, and fear of blackmail is not a legally sufficient argument to prevent us from performing a statutory command.... Indeed, the freedoms that we champion are as important to our success in Iraq and Afghanistan as the guns and missiles with which our troops are armed.”
Ya know I must admit I LIKE what he has to say.
I wish the Fn MSM would show the WTC being attacked and coming down more often.
I also agree with the judge.
This isn't a question of blackmail.
I sent this letter to the editor in March. It was published.
Dear Sirs,
The ACLU recently won a Freedom of Information Act suit to force the release of more photographs of the abuse at Abu Ghraid. This is the latest step by the liberal minority and their supporters to embarrass the Bush Administration and punish it for the war in Iraq.
Investigations have shown that Abu Ghraid was the result of perverts on the night shift and poor supervision by their commanding officer. They are being punished for their actions. However, Democrats and liberals are trying to expand this as a torture scandal affecting the entire Administration and military, as if in a war every brutal act can be prevented.
To help their claims, the liberal media has lowered the definition of what torture is to include humiliation, sleep deprivation, or any kind of hardship. Not allowing a Muslim terrorist to sleep for three days, scaring him with dogs, or forcing him to soil himself is not pleasant, but such acts are not torture! For a good definition of torture, just ask Saddam Hussein. His repertoire included rapes with family members forced to watch, starvation, disfigurement, and extreme physical abuse. How many US prisoners have had their tongues cut out?
Most anti-war liberals publicly proclaim a deep care for our soldiers, yet incite Muslim fanatics to kill more American soldiers with these scandalous accusations. Note the riots generated by the false Koran story run by Newsweek, or the fallout from the first pictures of Abu Ghraid. This is not a case of liberal morality, but only liberal anger. They do not care about the damage done to our war effort against extranational murderers, only about the political damage they can do to George W. Bush. They obviously do not care about the welfare of the common soldier.
After the next large scale terror attack on the United States, I hope the public will remember who helped our enemies at their own citizen's expense.
May I ask why?
Thank you for your post Congressman!
The new standard for the citizens seems to be "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide". Should apply to government actions as well, imho.
The argument that this will lead to troops being killed is bogus, there are troops being killed there already.
I disagree with the judge. These items are evidence in military trials and if the military deems their release to be harmful to troops in the field or to American citizens abroad or to American interests in a time of war then the ACLU can STFU.
I think the military's desire to keep them classified is reasonable and tactically sound.
The judge is an idiot and presumes to elevate his expertise on military and international affairs over that of the military. He should be disrobed and told to seek employment in the private sector.
If there are abuses I don't think President Bush performed them.
If there are pictures I don't think President Bush took them.
If you can't disern the individual from the President/Commander and Chief then I think that person is a perfect Dem.
To stupid to hash out the facts for themself.
Besides since when do democrats win at the polls anymore? Let them release the pictures. Let them go after Delay with that stupid weak indictment.
But like the pictures, if Frist was stupid enough to pull a Martha in this day in age, let him go to jail just as she did and send a message to the rest of the Reps in office to beware of acting like and engaging of Dem like practices.
"Loose lips sink ships" went out the window the minute CNN filmed their welcome of our troops to the Gulf War. The window was sealed shut with Jerry's troop movements in the sand. Our founding fathers would not recognize this country, no thanks to the ACLU and the judicial system.
It is absolutely not bogus. The Newsweek article proves beyond any doubt that we are living in an Islamist tinderbox, looking for any excuse to lash out in violence.
We live in a free democracy and I don't like the government telling me what I can and can't see my country doing.
We do not live in a "free democracy" either. You need to go back to your US government class. We live in a Constitutional Republic. (Remember that part in the Pledge of Allegiance: ...and to the republic for which it stands... ?) It isn't your seeing this material that is worrisome, but disseminating clearly provocative material in a very dangerous period of war.
To naively ignore the deadly consequences of such an action is criminally negligent, in my opinion. I'm not sure where your reasoning comes from, but you sound like a fourteen-year-old wailing about how "it's not fair" that she can't wear a mini-skirt and see-through top to a frat party. This decision is so alarmingly irresponsible as to render most thinking Americans dumbfounded.
>I don't like government secrecy. We live in a free democracy and I don't like the government telling me what I can and can't see my country doing<
And what benefit would you gain other than giving you a cheap thrill watching S&M without going to your favorite porn site?
Yuck, I don't want to see that!
I do see your point though. There is a certain need for secrecy in a time of war. I just don't think that this situation fits that criteria, since the abuses have already happened and the people have already been prosecuted. People don't want to see these photos and videos because it will put an end to the whole 'frat prank' 'panties on head' notion of what really went on over there. The American public has a right to know what some of our soldiers are doing over there with our money and in our name.
BTW, I support the troops and the war, which makes it all the more important that we get it right.
Simple answer it is time for a fire.
This is different than just politics. Lives are at stake.
I have too many of my friend's children in the service to ignore a blatant attempt to put them in harms way.
Our legislators have already seen these photos, why does the public and the world have to see them? To undermine George Bush and the war on terror. That is the only reason.
THanks for targetting us layman. Very understandable and disturbing.
Many more troops and civilians will die as a direct result of this insane decision. Perhaps you don't care or don't mind.
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.