Prisoner Abuse Photos Will Not Be Released

Posted By Travis Gearhart at 2:58 pm on November 15, 2009

To the left is a supposed picture from Abu Ghraib, where a form of “stress torture” is being implemented. I know that this is an area that different conservatives find themselves on different sides. The things that were done in Abu Ghraib were disgusting and crossed the line between “advanced interrogation” and “indisputable torture”. There is a difference between approving water boarding (which I am fully in favor of, and even had it done to myself, you can see the video online at my site) and making prisoners pile on top of each other, naked. Those that participated in Abu Ghraib were prosecuted and sentenced accordingly, however, and there is no reason that I can see why the ACLU would want those pictures to become a part of the public domain for any other reason than to further smear the overall good name of the military.

I understand what the ACLU does. At times they fight important battles because one person or another’s civil rights have been violated, however far too often for my comfort do they find themselves fighting against freedom of religion or fighting battles like the release of the torture photos for really no apparent reason. With that said, I always give credit where credit is due, and the Obama administration (more specifically Defense Secretary Robert Gates) have blocked the release of these photos through new powers granted by Congress. Gates (as well as many other Americans, including myself) think that these photos being released will only inflame ant-American Islamic extremists even more so. As I said above, the acts were unjustifiable, however those responsible were served their justice, and the release of the photos makes no sense.

To me, I think of it like this: Let’s say that a person is practicing child pronography. He has a collection of photos that indicate extremely illegal and horrible acts, and he is caught and punished and thrown in jail. Would the ACLU try to make those photos public? I think not. Of course I already know what’s going to be said, and yes, there is a difference between naked children and torture abuses, but still, the analogy has some credence, does it not?

Needless to say, I’m happy that the Obama administration recognizes this as unnecessary, and I hope that they also talk Holder into not trying the GITMO detainees in New York, but that’s a whole nother can of worms and a different post that I think I’ll let Kevin tackle, mostly because he probably knows more about that than I do.

Comments (19)

19 Comments »

Comment by Chris H on November 15, 2009

Until you last until the person holding the water gets tired of washing your face, you haven’t been waterboarded. Mancow and every other legitimate demonstration had people restraining them in some manner. Granted you did more of the demonstration than I would ever be inclined to do, but you weren’t waterboarded.

Until the people of that country know what it is that we have been doing in their country, to their men and women, we can not suggest that we have their consent for being there. No consent, no legitimacy.

Comment by Travis Gearhart on November 15, 2009

The fact that people in that country are cooperating with us and helping to establish some form of democracy demonstrates their consent. As far as waterboarding goes, no, I didn’t go the entire length. I have been contemplating redoing it in a fashion where I have no “safe words” or anything and going through the whole time span, and I just may do it as soon as it gets warm enough outside (I’d hate to mess the inside of my home to prove a point). But as far as the experience goes, technically yes, I was waterboarded. To the extent as the GITMO detainies? No, but then again I didn’t plot to fly planes into the WTC (unless you don’t believe that either, in which case this conversation is over).

As I’ve said on other posts about water boarding, whether or not an individual adminstration wants to use it as a method: thats up to them. However if another attack happens and it comes out that waterboarding or another form of enhanced interrogation could have stopped it? That will be on Obamas hands. I give his administration the benefit of the doubt on foreign policy until I have reason to believe otherwise, and so far the only real problems I’ve had is his inability to decide to send more troops, and Holder bringing the detainees into America (both the NY trials and to close GITMO). Other than that, I have no major qualms and don’t pick through his every word like some conservatives do.

Comment by Chris H on November 15, 2009

How can someone give you consent if you are perpetrating a fraud against them? Who are we to decide when they’ve seen enough? Let them know the whole truth, the worst of it and allow them to provide for it.

Those in GITMO haven’t been convicted of any crimes, there’s no punishment being enacted. Torture is being used as a “technique” to extract information from people. The only thing that distinguishes you from the class of people at GITMO is no one has suggested that you know anything.

Comment by Chris H on November 15, 2009

That last sentence could be read as a derogatory remark toward you…that wasn’t the intention.

Comment by Travis Gearhart on November 15, 2009

Exactly what kind of fraud are we perpetrating? And by the people over there, I’m not talking about those that want us dead: I’m talking about the majority who either doesn’t give a crap either way and just want to be safe or those that actively cooperate with us. What happened to those over in GITMO is NOTHING compared to some of the things that happen over there and are just a part of EVERYDAY LIFE. And yes, if I knew that there was a terrorist plot to blow up, say, US STeel, I would expect to be waterboarded. Hell, if YOU knew information, I would expect for you to be waterboarded. So what you are telling me, Chris, is that we should just ASK them for information. That works really well. I could imagine the scenario: Mr. Akhbar. DEATH TO THE INFIDELS! Ok…um, I’d like to ask you a few…DEATH TO THE INFIDELS!

By the way, free country and all, I know, however foreign policy (or a lack there of) is the reason that Ron Paul will never be elected President. Granted, my views on foreign policy may be a little extreme, however extreme views are better than simply wanting to be an isolationist country and wanting to use private ships to handlie Somalise pirates instead of the Navy that we already have and is well trained. Let me ask you this, since by past posts and this conversation I have a pretty good idea that you are a supporter of “Dr. Paul”, why is it that he can suggest private vessels to take out pirates but many of your group hate Blackwater so much? Just something thats been bothering me.

Also, another thing that distinguishes me from a terrorist, is that I HAVEN’T PICKED UP A GUN AND FIRED ON AMERICAN SOLDIERS! I mean COME ON! Saying that theres nothing that distinguishes me from those guys?!

Comment by Chris H on November 15, 2009

By withholding information on the extent of the atrocities of Abu Graib, that’s the fraud I’m talking about. Those in Abu Graib weren’t convicted of crimes. The punishment that was doled out wasn’t even among the possible punishments had they been convicted.

You seem to not understand due process. Many of the people in GITMO were put there by accusation alone. There’s been no trial, only detainment and torture. So the only thing that distinguishes you from the people in GITMO is that nobody has accused you of firing on American soldiers and nobody has accused you of terrorism. Accusation alone is the difference.

Comment by Travis Gearhart on November 15, 2009

They were prisoners of war, Chris. F*ck due process, F*ck conviction. I understand due process. I also understand that after Abu Graib, those that did the already mentioned dispicable things were locked in jail where they belong. It is common knowledge what happened there, and the pictures don’t need to be released so that more soldiers can be killed. Also, and I say this once again because typing to you is like talking to my six month old son: I’M NOT SHOOTING AT AMERICAN SOLDIERS!!! You think that if those locked up WEREN’T shooting at soldiers, we’d want to bother snagging them up in the first place (or maybe thats a conspiracy too?) Theres no REASON for me to be locked up in GITMO! Get that through your thick skull, instead of this Pauler rhetoric that floats around as if it means a f*cking thing to those that will willing strap a BOMB to their CHEST, and kill and rape your family if they had the opportunity to do so. You feel bad for them?! You want them read their Miranda Rights or something?!

Comment by Chris on November 16, 2009

The GITMO detainees are explicitly NOT prisoners of war. They are people deemed “unlawful enemy combatants”. What’s the difference? Some Pakistani got paid a referral fee for saying his neighbor was one. No other proof necessary.

The Uighers that were detained at GITMO weren’t shooting at American soldiers either and yet were kept there for six years.

Comment by Travis Gearhart on November 16, 2009

There are a couple, yes, that is true, that were there wrongly. And I don’t necessarily think that going through all of the detainees with a fine tooth comb and finding that handful is a bad thing. If they aren’t the enemy, they shouldn’t be there. But chris, your talking about a HANDFUL here. Your reference that “some Pakistani got paid for saying his neighbor was one” is speaking very lowly of our military, and i imagine it happened on rare occasion, however to throw out the entire system because of a handful of people happen to be caught in the cross fire and picked up doesn’t make a lick of sense. “Unlawful enemy combatants”, “prisoners of war”, whatever phrase you use, it really doesn’t matter.The fact is 99.9% of those in GITMO are there for a reason.

Comment by Chris on November 16, 2009

That’s the friggin point. The ONLY thing that separates YOU from that .1% (it’s a larger number than that, but the principle holds if you accept that .1% are there wrongly) is no one is accusing YOU of having information. If someone were to suggest that you have some insider knowledge of some fictitious bomb plot, you would be kidnapped, renditioned and tortured before you could face those accusations.

I am not speaking lowly of our military. The military is at all times subordinate to a civilian authority. I am speaking lowly of that civilian authority who created a lottery policy of ‘Cash for Muslims’ in a country that has lower than a 50% adult literacy rate.

Comment by Travis Gearhart on November 16, 2009

So which Americans is this happening to, Chris? I understand your argument, I understand the distrust of government. But what Americans are being picked up and locked up? None that I’ve seen, and if there are by all means, let me know. If anything this country hasn’t been paying close enough attention to signs that there will be an attack by extremeists (Fort Hood). And maybe it is over .1%! Like I wrote above, by all means, if there is an innocent man locked up find out if he is innocent and release him. Innocent people weren’t, however, waterboarded. That was restricted to only the top officials. You’re putting an awful lot of faith in the word of some locked up people that they are innocent. Guess what? Everybody on Cell Block C in any prison will tell you that they are innocent, as well.

Comment by Chris H on November 16, 2009

How would you know if an American were being held at Guantanamo or anywhere else? It’s called extraordinary rendition for a reason. And what does their country of origin matter in the discussion? Are only American men created equal? Are the rights of life and liberty only unalienable if you’re an American? I don’t profess that it is our responsibility to secure those rights for those outside of our control, but when they are within our control, it is the purpose of our government’s existence that those rights be secured and protected.

The detainees at Guatanamo are just now even able to challenge their detention…seven and eight years after the fact. How would you know who torture was restricted to? They don’t video tape the interrogations.

Oh…and just yesterday…30 more at GITMO ordered released for lack of evidence
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/general/view/20091115judges_order_release_of_30_from_gitmo/srvc=home&position=recent

Comment by Chris H on November 16, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm-tFt3Itoc

Comment by Travis Gearhart on November 16, 2009

I know who was waterboarded, as you call torture, because of the CIA documents that were released. It does matter who has rights and who doesn’t, and quite frankly my rights to live in America and protect my own trump those of extremeists who want to rape my wife and kill my son. So if you care more about people like that, great! Also, great if those 30 have been set for release because they didn’t do anything! However, if they show back up on the battle field (as many have) and kill more Americans, you know, those most sane people really give a sh*t about, I’ll be the first to say I told you so. Let me ask you this Chris, since you dodged it in my last question, what exactly would you like them to do? Shall we not detain anyone? Should we just forget all about terrorism and just say meh, whatever. Much of what we have been talking about may not be the best way to handle the situation, so let me know! What would Chris do?

Comment by Chris H on November 16, 2009

There was more torture going on there than just waterboarding as those in the video can attest to. If you don’t think sodomy by a broom stick is torture…can’t wait for your video on that.

What would Chris do? First, Chris would declare war as a prerequisite of taking prisoners of war. From there, prisoners of war are to be detained if and only if they were captured on a battlefield, where they surrendered. They are to be held until such time as hostilities cease. In no event are they to be tortured!

If they are otherwise captured for crimes, they are to be tried for those crimes.

You are pretty dense to be more afraid of a man in Pakistan raping and killing your wife and child, then you are of your government doing that to you.

Comment by Laurie on November 16, 2009

Normally, I’d let my card-carrying ACLU freak flag fly, but I tend to agree with Travis on this one. I respect the ACLU for fighting the good fight and keeping an eye on the big issue, but I also respect Gates and the Obama administration for doing the exact same thing on this issue. The abuse, and some of the aggregious photos depicting it, was exposed in full view of the American people. What’s the value in releasing further photos which have been described as “more of the same and in duplicate”? What’s the harm? Like it or not, these quesitons take precedent over the public’s right to see more of the same, unless a prominent political figure is one of the players or they show us once and for all who REALLY killed Kennedy.

Comment by kevintracy on November 17, 2009

I’m usually a fan of information dissemination, but Laurie is right. There is no need for the world population to see more of what they have already seen. Especially when such things will only serve to inspire a new wave of enemy propaganda.

Were stupid things done that shouldn’t have been done? Absolutely. But do we need to see more evidence of these stupid things when everybody already knows what stupid things were done? No.

Many, many years from now – when all of this has boiled over and Americans and Arabs both are living under the same oppressive global regime of an unchecked China; maybe we can look back at this stuff and laugh. But until that day comes, there’s no purpose in releasing the additional evidence.

Comment by Travis Gearhart on November 17, 2009

Thank you Laurie and Kevin! Finally, its like talking to a brick wall here!

Chris, its been real, but I’m mooovin’ on my friend. You seem to completely ignore whole paragraphs at a time and miss the points completely. I certainly didn’t say that I thought sodomization with a broom handle was appropriate (in fact there are several times in the past convos that I said it WASN’T appropriate) and if you read my statement that said if they WERE GIVEN A CHANCE to rape and murder your family they would as me worrying about some Pakistinian dude actually coming over and doing it, you need to work on your reading comprehension skills. Thanks for showing me yet another person who blindly yells “Liberty!” and gets aroused by Ron Pauls photo.

Comment by Chris H on November 17, 2009

How is it a “new wave” of propaganda if it is true? That the world knows there is more to the story and we refuse to tell all is what allows the propaganda to continue. The unknown is a much greater recruiting tool than the known, unless of course what the images that are being withheld depict is much worse than has been released.

That Manadel al-Jamadi was tortured to death while a suspect (read no due process) and no one has been convicted of any wrong doing has to leave people suspect of what went on. The Iraqis have a right to demand a pound of flesh, releasing the information is a pittance in comparison.

And Travis, there is no blind yelling of liberty. I’ve recounted specific instances where our government has been used to enact the exact actions for which it was founded to protect. That you fail to recognize this perversion is sick. You have no value of life, you have no value for truth. What do you value? Your temporary security and comfort above all else? If that’s the case, it will indeed be temporary.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Prisoner Abuse Photos Will Not Be Released

19 Comments »

Leave a comment