Obama defends abuse photos U-turn

[Androsphinx]

If Middle Easterners are reasonable enough to distinguish the two men, revealing more of Bush's dirty laundry will not tarnish Obama.

The problem is not with Obama's reputation, but with the reputation of the US as a whole, which is considerably worse. It would follow that if the choice is between an action that will slightly damage Obama's reputation (and which is minor in the context of his broader ME policy), and one which will damage the US's reputation, the former is preferable.

Further, I disagree without your underlying assumption that revealing the pictures is less damaging than continuing to cover them up. The latter is a one-day story which will raise a few eyebrows and be forgotten in a week. Graphic photographs of prisoner abuse will run and run.

If things really are as you describe and revealing the pictures is the option less damaging to US foreign policy goals, what's the argument for keeping them secret?

Obama (and the US) is damaged more by covering up evidence of his predecessor's crimes, thereby becoming complicit in the action, than by coming clean and saying "look at this shit I'm not doing and deplore and I would never do and those who do need to be held accountable."

And yet, if that's true than the administration's actions make no sense, as you ably noted above. We've proceeded thus far on the assumption that Obama should release them on grounds of openness, transparency and so forth; and considered national security (i.e. troops abroad and damage to foreign policy goals) as the reason not to release them. If national security is genuinely better served by releasing the photographs, then there's no reason at all to keep everything secret.

So your argument that continuing to cover-up is worse than releasing the photographs proves too much - not only does it make release a good idea, it makes it the -only- idea, and reeks of trying to have your cake and eat it.

[Androsphinx]

If Middle Easterners are reasonable enough to distinguish the two men, revealing more of Bush's dirty laundry will not tarnish Obama.

The problem is not with Obama's reputation, but with the reputation of the US as a whole, which is considerably worse. It would follow that if the choice is between an action that will slightly damage Obama's reputation (and which is minor in the context of his broader ME policy), and one which will damage the US's reputation, the former is preferable.

Further, I disagree without your underlying assumption that revealing the pictures is less damaging than continuing to cover them up. The latter is a one-day story which will raise a few eyebrows and be forgotten in a week. Graphic photographs of prisoner abuse will run and run.

If things really are as you describe and revealing the pictures is the option less damaging to US foreign policy goals, what's the argument for keeping them secret?

Except in this case, aren't you going to further humiliate those people getting abused if you let the whole world see those pictures?

Hell, I sure as hell don't wish to see pictures of me getting abused released worldwide. I'm pretty sure that releasing those pictures does count as mental humiliations, and extremely disrespectful to a person's rights. (Even if Obama said they don't have rights.)

If that's the problem, they could just blur out the faces. That is to say, it's not the problem.

[ray245]

If that's the problem, they could just blur out the faces. That is to say, it's not the problem.

Even then, to the person getting humiliated, I don't think blurring your face will help things much.

[Edi]

Fuck you, you evasive little shit. You claimed that waterboarding is not physically injurious and I demanded evidence for this assertion because we have plenty of evidence (such as what Dominus Atheos quoted) that waterboarding can in fact cause physical injury.

Or are you now going to try to argue that physical injury = death?

Let me draw your attention to the key word you, Jesse Ventura, and Dominus Atheos all said: CAN. As in may, could, potentially. I'm not evading. Has American waterboarding caused permanent physical injury or death? I looked online before I posed that back at you, and I could not find any evidence. CAN is not IS. The instant you prove that CAN has become HAS, I will retract my statements.

For the record, you claimed waterboarding was not physically injurious. Look the word up in a fucking dictionary. Waterboarding can inflict physical injuries, so whether or not it has happened in a given instance is completely irrelevant. Your claim is out and out bullshit and I'm not going to go along with your blatant attempt at shifting goalposts.

As far as your defense of waterboarding in general, I guess in Chocula-world there are two variable punishments for waterboarding someone:

1) Soldiers of other nations who waterboard Americans are sentenced to death for warcrimes (look up some precedents from previous war crimes trials).

2) American soldiers who waterboard prisoners face no consequences and fuckwits like you go out of their way to make excuses for them and the politicians who refuse to do anything about it.


One of the biggest problems surrounding this issue when dealing with morons like you is that Americans are not being routinely tortured by some foreign power with the events being publicly known and the US powerless to do anything about it. If that were happening (and it's good that it's not), you'd be screeching at the top of your lungs about it. It would drive the point home for you like nothing else seems to be able to. Nice double standard you have there.

Just fuck off, Chocula.

If you take a look back through this thread, the only person posting here who has been in the US military is Coyote. When you read through his posts, you find a great deal of discomfort over this issue and no defense whatsoever of the actual act of torturing people done by US personnel. The reason for that is that he has a far better grasp of what's at stake on many different levels. Read what he says and ponder that. Maybe you'll realize something, but I doubt it. You're too fucking stupid by far for me to set such high expectations.

[LMSx]

And yet, if that's true than the administration's actions make no sense, as you ably noted above. We've proceeded thus far on the assumption that Obama should release them on grounds of openness, transparency and so forth; and considered national security (i.e. troops abroad and damage to foreign policy goals) as the reason not to release them. If national security is genuinely better served by releasing the photographs, then there's no reason at all to keep everything secret.

So your argument that continuing to cover-up is worse than releasing the photographs proves too much - not only does it make release a good idea, it makes it the -only- idea, and reeks of trying to have your cake and eat it.

Obama's actions sustaining Don't Ask, Don't Tell make no sense, either, but that doesn't mean the groups trying to end it have less of a point. Given the flimsiness of his public excuses on this issue, I'm ready to believe the whole deal's dependent on the PR-unfriendly belief that the principles of DADT and the detainee photos are just commodities that can be put off for a more politically expedient time.

[Androsphinx]

I think that the two things are very different. Detainee photos could severely impact on many of the administration's efforts in the ME, and so there are considerable national security and national interest issues at stake. DADT is just getting short shrift because the administration has better things to do with its time.

[Darth Wong]

You argued that the torture in these pictures is somehow not real torture. Now you're just trying to weasel away from explaining your own bullshit arguments. Evasion is the one debate technique that you're actually good at.

We don't know what the pictures show, because they're not being released. I don't know if they're pictures of sleep deprivation, waterboarding, being walked down a hallway with dog collars, or being stacked in nude pyramids. Do you know what the pictures show? No. At this point WE ARE ALL SPECULATING, in the lack of any evidence.

That's not the point, you lying little shit. You have spent this entire thread downplaying the severity of waterboarding, because you're a tough-talking shithead. Go get waterboarded for half an hour and then get back to me about how mild it is.

[Civil War Man]

Let me draw your attention to the key word you, Jesse Ventura, and Dominus Atheos all said: CAN. As in may, could, potentially. I'm not evading. Has American waterboarding caused permanent physical injury or death? I looked online before I posed that back at you, and I could not find any evidence. CAN is not IS. The instant you prove that CAN has become HAS, I will retract my statements.

Hold the phone here. Are you seriously arguing that Americans waterboarding prisoners is not a big deal because the prisoners might not have been killed or permanently injured?

By the logic you seem to be using here, then lynching is no big deal, so long as they use short drop (where the person is slowly strangled by the rope) as opposed to standard or long drop (which dislocates the neck vertebrae) and they don't let the lynching carry on long enough to kill the person. After all, if you use short drop, then the person only might die. Hell, if you only do it for short amounts of time, then the victim probably won't suffer anything more serious than minor rope burns.

[LMSx]

I think that the two things are very different. Detainee photos could severely impact on many of the administration's efforts in the ME, and so there are considerable national security and national interest issues at stake. DADT is just getting short shrift because the administration has better things to do with its time.

Here's the thing. Obama is much more popular in the Middle East than the USA. A little strange, perhaps, but not that surprising if you think about it. So the "how much more could the US be disliked" argument doesn't really fly. Another abuse scandal with lots of pictures could jeopardise the administration's actual plans for the region, which just might get somewhere.

You appear to have misinterpreted my initial post as addressing some vague "United States" doing these things, separate from Barack Obama. But when Glenn Greenwald says "we", he means Barack Obama has consented to or endorsed these policies.

We're currently occupying two Muslim countries. We're killing civilians regularly (as usual) -- with airplanes and unmanned sky robots. We're imprisoning tens of thousands of Muslims with no trial, for years. Our government continues to insist that it has the power to abduct people -- virtually all Muslim -- ship them to Bagram, put them in cages, and keep them there indefinitely with no charges of any kind. We're denying our torture victims any ability to obtain justice for what was done to them by insisting that the way we tortured them is a "state secret" and that we need to "look to the future." We provide Israel with the arms and money used to do things like devastate Gaza. Independent of whether any or all of these policies are justifiable, the extent to which those actions "inflame anti-American sentiment" is impossible to overstate.

There is simply no way that this will be what tarnishes the Obama Administration. If the release of years-old photos are "severely damaging" to the Arab world's perception of us, then by all rights any of these other ongoing actions the Obama Administration is undertaking ought to be completely apocalyptic in nature. Some measure of absolution through the release of these photos is not only more likely to occur than the creation of a successful Afghanistan state, the costs by any reasonable standards are significantly less then what we incur with the visuals of consistent mass deaths from our bombs radiated daily to Middle Eastern TV sets and computers. And again, the buck stops with Obama. The die is already cast.

[Count Chocula]

For the record, you claimed waterboarding was not physically injurious. Look the word up in a fucking dictionary. Waterboarding can inflict physical injuries, so whether or not it has happened in a given instance is completely irrelevant. Your claim is out and out bullshit and I'm not going to go along with your blatant attempt at shifting goalposts.

You are entirely correct. I said that the practice, "while not physically injurious is deemed torture..." You then countered with it can be, and I agree. Please allow me to clarify my statement: if you see my clarification as an attempt to shift goalposts, so be it.

What I should have said was that the three Guantanamo detainees who were waterboarded (numerous times each) were not physically injured. The US military has used it as part of SERE training for decades, but I don't know if it's being used now, since the military won't say. I looked, but could not find, any US soldier injuries as a result of waterboarding during SERE training.

So yes, my claim is bullshit: it CAN cause injury. I will repeat, however, that it HAS NOT physically injured either the three Guantanamo prisoners on which it was used or the thousands(?) of American soldiers who were subjected to it. From a cold-hearted point of view, I suppose you could classify waterboarding as a form of non-damaging torture right up there with sodium pentothal.

As far as your defense of waterboarding in general, I guess in Chocula-world there are two variable punishments for waterboarding someone:

1) Soldiers of other nations who waterboard Americans are sentenced to death for warcrimes (look up some precedents from previous war crimes trials).

2) American soldiers who waterboard prisoners face no consequences and fuckwits like you go out of their way to make excuses for them and the politicians who refuse to do anything about it.

If by #1 you're referring to the Japanese practice in WWII (and I don't know if you are because you didn't specify but told me to research your assertion) you are correct. The Japanese variant included pouring water over the victim until they had swallowed so much water that their stomachs were full, then jumping on their stomachs until they vomited, then repeating. [cynical mode]The US won the war against Japan, so we got to put Japanese officers on trial. [/cynical mode] The similarity between the two techniques is that the Japanese variant (or the Inquisition variant, or the French version in Algeria, or the Khmer Rouge's version or the US/South Vietnamese variant) didn't cause physical injury,

As for point 2, we're treading into legal territory I'm not qualified to pass judgement on. As far as "no consequences for American soldiers" goes, my read on it is that the Bybee Memorandum from 2002 is framing the judicial debate. But, to reiterate, I'm guessing; I don't know.

One of the biggest problems surrounding this issue when dealing with morons like you is that Americans are not being routinely tortured by some foreign power with the events being publicly known and the US powerless to do anything about it. If that were happening (and it's good that it's not), you'd be screeching at the top of your lungs about it. It would drive the point home for you like nothing else seems to be able to. Nice double standard you have there.

Just fuck off, Chocula.

Nice use of the hypothetical argument there pal. Creative invective, too. +1!

If you take a look back through this thread, the only person posting here who has been in the US military is Coyote. When you read through his posts, you find a great deal of discomfort over this issue and no defense whatsoever of the actual act of torturing people done by US personnel. The reason for that is that he has a far better grasp of what's at stake on many different levels. Read what he says and ponder that. Maybe you'll realize something, but I doubt it. You're too fucking stupid by far for me to set such high expectations.

I served in the U.S. Air Force, but my military experience has no bearing the discussion; all I did was sit in an office or control tower. I understand Coyote's discomfort about Americans torturing prisoners; it appears, though, that despite your, my or Coyote's opinions, after consultation with the Justice Department physical injury was set as the do not cross line between "aggressive interrogation" and torture. While I'm still in Chocula-world, I wish that the three terrorists that were tortured by waterboarding for information hadn't planned and participated in the September 11, 2001 attacks. But, they did and we had to find out what else they were planning to do. Waterboarding was considered and agreed on as the most extreme non-injurious method to use by CIA, the military, the administration, and the Justice Department. To expand and reiterate, the US personnel who did the acts Elfdart listed on Page 2 should be nailed to the wall for torture and possibly murder; at least manslaughter for items B and C, but it does not appear that there's a legal basis for prosecution of waterboarding.

[Count Chocula]

You know what, I just noticed this:

Show me one instance of a death from American waterboarding, or one instance of permanent injury from American waterboarding, and I will immediately apologize to you and classify the practice in the same category as permanent, physically crippling torture.

So it's not "torture" to you unless it is "physically crippling"? So if you went to a Turkish prison and got gang-raped and beaten and humiliated for years but suffered no "permanent physically crippling" injuries, you would not consider that inhumane?

I suppose you'll start pointing out the difference between waterboarding and Turkish prison treatment now, completely disregarding the point.

Did you ignore the rest of my post on purpose before sliding off into Turkish-prison-gang-rape-what-if land? Here, let me show you the full post:

Right back at you. Show me one instance of a death from American waterboarding, or one instance of permanent injury from American waterboarding, and I will immediately apologize to you and classify the practice in the same category as permanent, physically crippling torture. I'm not a SCUBA diver, but I do snorkel and swim just about every day. I know very well the effects of oxygen deprivation, the craving to open your mouth for a lung full of (hopefully) air, and the relief when you break the surface and breathe. I'm NOT denying waterboarding is torture. I will deny, however, that it has led to any injuries in interrogation of Muslim terrorists. You quoted Jesse Ventura saying it can lead to death. Show that it has led to death, and to the OT show that it has anything to do with the abuse photos, and I'll back waaayyy off.

That's pretty fucking selective of you. I'm guessing you'd jump my shit if I cherry-picked one of your posts like that. Here, let me clarify my thoughts: waterboarding is torture in my opinion. Sleep deprivation is torture in my opinion. Being humiliated is torture in my opinion. There ARE degrees of torture that I consider worse than other forms, however, namely the infliction of physical pain, mutilation, permanent injury, breaking of bones, and so on. To briefly address your rape red herring, I personally would consider this middle school rape of a student to be torture, but the kids who did it weren't charged with that...maybe because they weren't seeking information and just getting sick kicks.

Perhaps you and Edi feel that I'm switching the goalposts by asserting that the Guantanamo prisoners who were waterboarded weren't physically injured. You know what, if that is your point of view (and please confirm if it is) then you're right..what I said had no place in this thread.


ON TOPIC INFORMATION ALERT!
After finding out that the pictures President Obama wants to suppress were leaked HERE and reading the article, it appears that the pictures were from the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse in 2003, and the perpetrators have already been prosecuted and punished. In that light, I completely understand and agree with the President's desire to block the release of the photos, as they would serve no good purpose for U.S. interests and would not lead to any further prosecutions for abuse (my opinion only).

[Covenant]

There's an idea that's in here that I'm not able to follow through all the warfare over if or if not it's okay to commit the most horrible things possible to someone as part of an interrogation, something I think should be clear enough, or be handled elsewhere ideally.

What I'm wondering is why the Allies of the US want to see the pictures, or why anyone really considers the photos of any special significance over the raw data that shows how this torture was organized and carried out. I was under the impression that the torture program had been exposed and documented to know enough that this was as bad as torture programs get, and organized from the top down. I'm all for using the photos as part of a hearing on the culpability of the previous administration's organized utilization of crimes against humanity.

Even so, I don't think that releasing them in the US would make the FOX-watching crowd change their views, not even the viscera from Vietnam did that, and that was of their own children. Would it make other people feel that way, especially the people overseas who seem to be mentioned a lot? Why would circulating these photos in the foreign press make those populations have a greater respect for America, or approach their own government's military actions in a different way? I'm not making any assertions, except that seemed like everyone already knows horrific torture was going on, so I'm curious why this has gotten such big play--I haven't been to the board in a few days and I honestly didn't expect this to be much of a story.

Or is this a transparency issue, not an 'admittal of torture' issue? Regardless of what the crazy parts of the Muslim world would think, would releasing these photos actually achieve a net benefit elsewhere? I suppose I don't understand how this is covering up the comission of torture, this seems most like the police having crime-scene photos and not wanting to give them to the press. Are we blocking the release of the photos, and not mentioning what they contained?

[Darth Wong]

I'm NOT denying waterboarding is torture.

Your dishonesty knows no bounds, cunt. You're trying to draw a line between what you consider real torture and what you consider acceptable torture. The fact that you concede that it meets the definition of the word "torture" is irrelevant, since you're trying to make it seem as if there are two kinds of torture: real torture and half-assed torture.

That's pretty fucking selective of you

Go fuck yourself, you worthless piece of monkey shit. I know perfectly well what you're trying to say; you're trying to say "OK, it's technically torture, but it's not real torture". As I said, why don't you go get your candy-ass self waterboarded for half an hour, and then get back to me about how fucking mild it is, and how it's not the kind of torture people should be upset about? That's your whole goddamned point, remember? You're trying to draw distinctions between torture we should be upset about, and torture that's not really a big deal. Or are you going to try to deny that too? Your own words in this thread will hang you, asshole.

[Brain_Caster]

I have two questions two ask:

1.) Are the people responsible for what's on the photos being held responsible, and are the photos available as evidence to the courts?

2.) Has the US made sure that something like AbuGhraib can never happen again?


If the answer to both those questions is "yes", then I see nothing fundamentally wrong with not releasing the photos, as their being released would really only supply propaganda material for extremists. Not releasing them is the cautious realpolitic option, but I don't see how it's ethically wrong as long as one does not deny that those crimes have happened and does something about it.
If the answer is "no", and the photos are being suppressed to make it easier to swipe the whole affair under the carpet that is indeed hypocritical and disappointing.

Also, what about the victims on the photos? Shouldn't they get any say in this?

[Elfdart]

So yes, my claim is bullshit: it CAN cause injury. I will repeat, however, that it HAS NOT physically injured either the three Guantanamo prisoners on which it was used or the thousands(?) of American soldiers who were subjected to it. From a cold-hearted point of view, I suppose you could classify waterboarding as a form of non-damaging torture right up there with sodium pentothal.

Sodium pentathol being one of the drugs used to carry out lethal injections.

As for point 2, we're treading into legal territory I'm not qualified to pass judgement on. As far as "no consequences for American soldiers" goes, my read on it is that the Bybee Memorandum from 2002 is framing the judicial debate. But, to reiterate, I'm guessing; I don't know.

Really? So you have to pass the Bar exam to know that (a) the US government has been prosecuting people for water torture since the Spanish-American War and (b) German lawyers were prosecuted at Nuremberg for writing legal briefs that claimed war crimes were perfectly legal, right? Or are you just being a dishonest prick and playing dumb?

I served in the U.S. Air Force, but my military experience has no bearing the discussion; all I did was sit in an office or control tower. I understand Coyote's discomfort about Americans torturing prisoners; it appears, though, that despite your, my or Coyote's opinions, after consultation with the Justice Department physical injury was set as the do not cross line between "aggressive interrogation" and torture.

No, laws are passed by Congress, not White House lawyers. US Code forbids the torture of prisoners, as does the Convention Against Torture and the US Constitution. The lawyers who wrote those memos might as well have said that arson is legal as long as you don't use gasoline. All it shows is that they are culpable, too.

While I'm still in Chocula-world, I wish that the three terrorists that were tortured by waterboarding for information hadn't planned and participated in the September 11, 2001 attacks. But, they did and we had to find out what else they were planning to do.

You will of course provide evidence for this claim, right? And by evidence, I don't mean "confessions" obtained after torture.

Waterboarding was considered and agreed on as the most extreme non-injurious method to use by CIA, the military, the administration, and the Justice Department.

No, the senior lawyers for all branches of the armed forces opposed it, and testified to that effect before Congress.

To expand and reiterate, the US personnel who did the acts Elfdart listed on Page 2 should be nailed to the wall for torture and possibly murder; at least manslaughter for items B and C, but it does not appear that there's a legal basis for prosecution of waterboarding.

Tell that to Sheriff Parker of San Jacinto County, Texas. He and his deputies served time in federal prison for water torturing prisoners in his jail.

At this point, you're really just lying and being an asshole.

[The Guid]

Ultimately, when looking at the single issue of the photos, I tend to take the "do not publish" line. I do not understand the gain that will be got by their publication. They are not being suppressed in the sense that their existence is being questioned - they are, as others are pointing out, a highly potent propoganda weapon for people who will target anger at US personnel which is something to be avoided. If people think it wouldn't be that big a deal, think of the spikes after the last images were released or the horror of the fake pictures published in the UK. An image is far more damaging than words - it carries emotion far better.

The opposite arguments seem abstract to me, and I tend to be swayed by real world specifics.

[General Zod]

Why exactly would these photos be a more useful weapon against Americans than, say, the Taleban simply posting photos of children killed in the war and putting the blame on US troops? It wouldn't even be much of a stretch due to collateral damage and would drive the point home far more.

[Darth Wong]

Why exactly would these photos be a more useful weapon against Americans than, say, the Taleban simply posting photos of children killed in the war and putting the blame on US troops? It wouldn't even be much of a stretch due to collateral damage and would drive the point home far more.

Yeah, I'd like to know who these Muslims are who have been thinking "Yeah, the US is a pretty benevolent power in our part of the world" up until now, but would suddenly change sides because of some new photos. The people who would hold this up as proof of American barbarity have plenty of other evidence already.

Of course, one could argue that they're barbaric themselves, but both sides have been adopting the "our barbarity is justified by their barbarity" line for a long time now.

[ray245]

Why exactly would these photos be a more useful weapon against Americans than, say, the Taleban simply posting photos of children killed in the war and putting the blame on US troops? It wouldn't even be much of a stretch due to collateral damage and would drive the point home far more.

That it serves as a further reinforcement to the people in Pakistan or Afghanistan that the Taliban are fighting a just war.

Children getting killed in war can be dismissed by some people as mishaps in a war, an accident, but seeing pictures of people getting tortured makes it hard to deny that certain harsh actions were deliberate.

[General Zod]

Why exactly would these photos be a more useful weapon against Americans than, say, the Taleban simply posting photos of children killed in the war and putting the blame on US troops? It wouldn't even be much of a stretch due to collateral damage and would drive the point home far more.

That it serves as a further reinforcement to the people in Pakistan or Afghanistan that the Taliban are fighting a just war.

Children getting killed in war can be dismissed by some people as mishaps in a war, an accident, but seeing pictures of people getting tortured makes it hard to deny that certain harsh actions were deliberate.

You could just as easily argue that hiding the photos would have the same effect. "Proof" that America has done heinous deeds and is trying to conceal the evidence of it, because if it wasn't hideous they wouldn't be trying to cover it up.

[Dominus Atheos]

Why exactly would these photos be a more useful weapon against Americans than, say, the Taleban simply posting photos of children killed in the war and putting the blame on US troops? It wouldn't even be much of a stretch due to collateral damage and would drive the point home far more.

The leader of the opposition party in Iraq's parliament agrees with you.

Harith al Obaidi, the head of the largest Sunni Muslim bloc in Iraq's parliament and the deputy chairman of the Committee on Human Rights, also shrugged off the Obama administration's concerns over the photos.

"The people who want to express their opinions through violence are already trying their best to do so," Obaidi said. "Showing them a few pictures wouldn't make them any more able to do it."

Obaidi called on Obama to release the photos and to hold any perpetrators of abuse publicly accountable. Keeping the pictures secret will only bolster suspicions that the American government is trying to suppress evidence of more widespread abuse, he said.

The desire to protect U.S. soldiers should be weighed against the need to show the world that America doesn't condone such behavior by its troops, Obaidi said.

[Aaron]

Why exactly would these photos be a more useful weapon against Americans than, say, the Taleban simply posting photos of children killed in the war and putting the blame on US troops? It wouldn't even be much of a stretch due to collateral damage and would drive the point home far more.

They already do that, in fact US airstrikes have been a bone of contention between the US, the Afghan government and NATO forces in Afghanistan for years now. In part because it makes a great recruiting tool. That said, I'm sure they wouldn't pass up the opportunity to use these as well because it doesn't hurt to have more proof that your enemy is barbaric.

Personally I go with the idea that they ought to be released on the transparency issue, that was apparently a big part of Obama's platform.

[Thanas]

Waterboarding was considered and agreed on as the most extreme non-injurious method to use by CIA, the military, the administration, and the Justice Department.

No, the senior lawyers for all branches of the armed forces opposed it, and testified to that effect before Congress.

Half a minute of googling shows me the organization of military translators/interrogators opposed the practice as well. Hey, it is right on their website.

[The Guid]

Why exactly would these photos be a more useful weapon against Americans than, say, the Taleban simply posting photos of children killed in the war and putting the blame on US troops? It wouldn't even be much of a stretch due to collateral damage and would drive the point home far more.
Why exactly would these photos be a more useful weapon against Americans than, say, the Taleban simply posting photos of children killed in the war and putting the blame on US troops? It wouldn't even be much of a stretch due to collateral damage and would drive the point home far more.

I think its arguable that some people would find torture photos more problematic. I mean - collateral damage is a part of war, and anyone who is smart enough would know that when you fire at something you might not hit right on. Besides, even if it is less effective than the bombs of children its still something that can be avoided.

Yeah, I'd like to know who these Muslims are who have been thinking "Yeah, the US is a pretty benevolent power in our part of the world" up until now, but would suddenly change sides because of some new photos. The people who would hold this up as proof of American barbarity have plenty of other evidence already.

I don't think anyone is arguing that these photos alone are a massive change, but they are part of incrimental damage to an information war. I'm not suggesting that one day somebody is saluting the flag and then next they are blowing themselves up. I'm suggesting that these photos will be something that might be "the last straw" for someone and leads to them being less co-operative with US troops, or if they were already being uncooperative it might push them to joining with more violent ends.

I'd also say that a new photo is more powerful. We get used to certain aspects of knowledge, we become immune to it. Its why a new "gaffe" or "scandel" about a politician is far more damaging than an old one. Think of how many people readily accept that Iraq is a "move on" issue rather than continuing to hammer the politicians reponsible, even if it is something they disagreed with. I mean, ask any candidate for any high office if they'd prefer something damaging to their reputation to happen 3 years before their election of 3 months or 3 weeks or 3 days every single one will go for the 3 years - its less damaging if it is distant.

You could just as easily argue that hiding the photos would have the same effect. "Proof" that America has done heinous deeds and is trying to conceal the evidence of it, because if it wasn't hideous they wouldn't be trying to cover it up.

I would say that an image is far more powerful than any amount of things you can SAY the Americans are doing. The old saying; "a picture is worth a thousand words" in propoganda terms actually overvalues words.

I will post an article here that is relevant. It doesn't totally back me up, but once I found it I felt I should post it. I have bolded some particularly relevant parts.

LA Times

In Iraq, a Subdued Response to New Detainee Abuse Photos
By Solomon Moore
February 17, 2006


Newly released photos of detainee abuse by American soldiers and intelligence officers at the Abu Ghraib prison sparked condemnation by U.S. and Iraqi officials Thursday, but little of the populist outrage and street violence that followed release of the first such images nearly two years ago.

The pictures, which were posted by the online magazine Salon, depict naked Iraqi detainees handcuffed to bed frames and prison bars. Other images show U.S. soldiers posing near prisoners who are wearing nothing but hoods over their heads. One picture shows a detainee sodomizing himself with an object. Two photos show the bloody floor of a detention cell.

The new images come only a few days after a video apparently showing British troops beating Iraqi youths in 2004 was publicized.

The new images of Abu Ghraib were aired around the clock Thursday on Arab television channels such as Al Arabiya and Al Jazeera and were front-page stories in several Arabic-language newspapers here.

But the relatively subdued response in Iraq and the region seemed to allay concerns that the release of the photos, particularly in the wake of the controversy over publication of caricatures of the prophet Muhammad, would cause more violence.

U.S. military spokesman Army Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch said Thursday that the photos were not the basis for a recent spike in violence.

Moulk Abed Hazzawi, a 42-year-old Baghdad lawyer, said the new images were a dangerous diversion from Iraq's present-day problems.

"This is just another injustice against the Iraqi people," she said. "We heard about these things two years ago, and we don't want to be reminded about this now. We are busy trying to form a new government. Whoever is showing these pictures is trying to provoke more violence."

Other residents said the pictures renewed old feelings of humiliation and resentment toward U.S. forces. "They make us forget our personal problems and all the big problems Iraqis are suffering and focus on these abuses because they dishonor us so badly," said Jawad Kraidi, 40, a south Baghdad resident.

Mohammed Askari, a Defense Ministry spokesman, cast the pictures as deviations that have since been corrected.

"These are violations against proper procedure that were rejected by the American and Iraqi government," he said. "These were spontaneous actions committed without any official involvement, and we trust there was a fair investigation into these matters."

U.S. officials denounced the activities shown in the latest Abu Ghraib photos but said they were the same instances of misconduct that had already been investigated and prosecuted.

"I'm told that these photographs that are coming out now are nothing more than the same things that came out before

In a congressional appearance last week, Rumsfeld said that 87 soldiers had received criminal punishment through court-martial proceedings for abusing detainees, and that an additional 91 had been given administrative penalties.

Nine low-level enlistees have been convicted or have pleaded guilty to charges of detainee abuse in connection with the earlier highly publicized photos from Abu Ghraib.

Critics have complained that nearly all of those held criminally liable have been low-level personnel. An Army inspector general's report last year cleared all high-ranking commanders -- including Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the former U.S. ground commander in Iraq -- of wrongdoing.

The White House called abuses at Abu Ghraib "appalling" but said Thursday that the military had acted swiftly to hold soldiers accountable for improper conduct.

In Iraq, the U.S. military said Thursday that there had been 67 insurgent attacks in the country on Wednesday and 540 in the course of a week, a 17% increase.

In the capital, insurgents shot and killed three municipal workers. In a separate incident, a Defense Ministry official, Brig. Gen. Kaleel Yass, was assassinated. In the northern oil hub of Kirkuk, gunmen killed a police captain and his bodyguard.

In the bolded section it does suggest that the release of the images will not definitely be damaging. However the earlier abuse photos were cited as a cause for violence. So I'd say that there is a risk, even if it isn't certain. I hold to the position I hold because of that risk, I readily accept that I can not be sure that it will cause violence, but there is a legitimate reason for believing it may do so.

[General Zod]

I think its arguable that some people would find torture photos more problematic. I mean - collateral damage is a part of war, and anyone who is smart enough would know that when you fire at something you might not hit right on. Besides, even if it is less effective than the bombs of children its still something that can be avoided.

And some people would find killed children more problematic. There's always the rationalization of "they knew the risks when they went in".

In the bolded section it does suggest that the release of the images will not definitely be damaging. However the earlier abuse photos were cited as a cause for violence. So I'd say that there is a risk, even if it isn't certain. I hold to the position I hold because of that risk, I readily accept that I can not be sure that it will cause violence, but there is a legitimate reason for believing it may do so.

All of those instances happened under different political climates. I don't see why we should assume that what held true three years ago will necessarily hold true today.