Obama defends abuse photos U-turn

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
Edi
Dragonlord
Dragonlord
Posts: 12461
Joined: 2002-07-11 12:27am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: Obama defends abuse photos U-turn

Post by Edi »

Coyote wrote:
wautd wrote:
Androsphinx wrote:If these photos were half as bad as Seymour Hersh has been claiming for [years], there's no way they could be published - the consequences would be appalling.

Then I'd certainly release them. You never know the population opens their eyes and start demanding procecution of the people who ordered to do torture.
If we Americans were th eonly ones guaranteed to see them, I'd say yes. But the problem is, these photos of us abusing Arabs will only solidify Arab hatred of America and give al-Quaeda a propaganda victory ("So what those American dogs do to us!?").

We already know they are bad. Hell, evil. We don't need to roll in the shit to know that it stinks. The downside? Yes, it will "shield" perpatrators. But the gain will be outweighed by the devastation.
It will also cement the assumption by everyone else in the rest of the world that the US will never, ever actually do anything real about any abuses it commits, no matter who is in power. Who cares what the Arabs think? It's known already that they dislike or outright hate America, but it's your allies who will be nodding their heads and going "Yep, same old same old, America can do no wrong and even if it does, nobody will ever do anything about it no matter what they say."

That in turn will lead to a general perception that if something terrible happens, such as another large scale terrorist attack, there will be no outpouring of sympathy like there was in 2001. Instead, it will be "Well, with what they've done and all the promises they've broken, what can you expect? Who gives a shit?"

Even if it's not said out loud to anyone, a lot of people will be thinking like that. If there is no clear break with the Bush era shit, there will be no real redemption for the US in the eyes of the rest of the world. Even if there was a clean break, you'll still be dealing with the consequences of Bush's fuckups and the loss of prestige they incurred for decades. Failure to do that clean break will just mean the consequences will be even worse in light of alternatives.
Warwolf Urban Combat Specialist

Why is it so goddamned hard to get little assholes like you to admit it when you fuck up? Is it pride? What gives you the right to have any pride?
–Darth Wong to vivftp

GOP message? Why don't they just come out of the closet: FASCISTS R' US –Patrick Degan

The GOP has a problem with anyone coming out of the closet. –18-till-I-die
User avatar
jcow79
Padawan Learner
Posts: 442
Joined: 2004-07-21 02:39am
Location: Spokane, WA

Re: Obama defends abuse photos U-turn

Post by jcow79 »

Either choice the administration made was going to have its critics. Not releasing the photos essentially stirs up the "transparency my ass" critics. And releasing the photos would stir up the "I can't believe he would jeopardize the security of our nation by releasing those" crowd. Sadly, the critics on the right reserve both arguments to apply whichever way the administration goes.
However, if you release the photos it does just what many in the thread have already mentioned. It riles up the middle east. No point in giving them something to protest and plot about despite that it's old news. I think NOT releasing the photos holds fewer consequences.
User avatar
LMSx
Jedi Knight
Posts: 880
Joined: 2002-07-03 09:23pm

Re: Obama defends abuse photos U-turn

Post by LMSx »

I find this argument compelling:
Link
But what is ultimately even more amazing is the claim that suppressing these photographs is necessary to prevent an inflammation of anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world generally and Afghanistan specifically. That claim is coming from the same people who are doing this:
Image
Up to 100 civilians, including women and children, are reported to have been killed in Afghanistan in potentially the single deadliest US airstrike since 2001. The news overshadowed a crucial first summit between the Afghan President and Barack Obama in Washington yesterday. . . .

This week’s airstrikes took place in the Taleban-controlled area of Bala Baluk, in Farah province. US military officials in Kandahar said that the number of fatalities was nearer 30, but the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said that the death toll was far higher.

Jessica Barry, an ICRC representative, said that an international Red Cross team in Bala Baluk saw “dozens of bodies in each of the two locations” on Tuesday. “There were bodies, there were graves, and there were people burying bodies when we were there,” she said. “We do confirm women and children.”
And doing this:
The Obama administration has told a federal judge that military detainees in Afghanistan have no legal right to challenge their imprisonment there, embracing a key argument of former President Bush’s legal team.

In a two-sentence filing late Friday, the Justice Department said that the new administration had reviewed its position in a case brought by prisoners at the United States Air Force base at Bagram, just north of the Afghan capital. The Obama team determined that the Bush policy was correct: such prisoners cannot sue for their release.
And this:
American soldiers opened fire and killed a 12-year old boy after a grenade hit their convoy in Mosul on Thursday. . . .

"We have every reason to believe that insurgents are paying children to conduct these attacks or assist the attackers in some capacity, undoubtedly placing the children in harm's way," a U. S. military spokesman wrote in an email on Saturday.

But eyewitnesses said the boy, identified as Omar Musa Salih, was standing by the side of the road selling fruit juice - a common practice in Iraq -- and had nothing to do with the attack.
And this:
The Obama administration is weighing plans to detain some terror suspects on U.S. soil -- indefinitely and without trial -- as part of a plan to retool military commission trials that were conducted for prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
And this:
In a federal court hearing in San Francisco this morning, a representative of the Justice Department said it would continue the Bush policy of invoking the 'state secrets' defense, which has been used in cases of rendition and torture.
And this:
The Israel Air Force used a new bunker-buster missile that it received recently from the United States in strikes against Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip on Saturday, The Jerusalem Post learned on Sunday. . . .

Israel received approval from Congress to purchase 1,000 units in September and defense officials said on Sunday that the first shipment had arrived earlier this month ..
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.

And now, the very same people who are doing all of that are claiming that they must suppress evidence of our government's abuse of detainees because to allow the evidence to be seen would "inflame anti-American sentiment." It's not hard to believe that releasing the photos would do so to some extent -- people generally consider it a bad thing to torture and brutally abuse helpless detainees -- but compared to everything else we're doing, the notion that releasing or concealing these photos would make an appreciable difference in terms of how we're perceived in the Muslim world is laughable on its face.

Moreover, isn't it rather obvious that Obama's decision to hide this evidence -- certain to be a prominent news story in the Muslim world, and justifiably so -- will itself inflame anti-American sentiment? It's not exactly a compelling advertisement for the virtues of transparency, honesty and open government. What do you think the impact is when we announce to the world: "What we did is so heinous that we're going to suppress the evidence?" Some Americans might be grateful to Obama for hiding evidence of what we did to detainees, but that is unlikely to be the reaction of people around the world.
User avatar
GrandMasterTerwynn
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6787
Joined: 2002-07-29 06:14pm
Location: Somewhere on Earth.

Re: Obama defends abuse photos U-turn

Post by GrandMasterTerwynn »

jcow79 wrote:Either choice the administration made was going to have its critics. Not releasing the photos essentially stirs up the "transparency my ass" critics. And releasing the photos would stir up the "I can't believe he would jeopardize the security of our nation by releasing those" crowd. Sadly, the critics on the right reserve both arguments to apply whichever way the administration goes.
However, if you release the photos it does just what many in the thread have already mentioned. It riles up the middle east. No point in giving them something to protest and plot about despite that it's old news. I think NOT releasing the photos holds fewer consequences.
The plotting and protesting segment of the Arab and Muslim populations are already to the point where the driving force behind their daily decisions, from what to eat for breakfast, to what to tune the radio to at night is "something anti-American/anti-Western." They already know that Americans hate Islam and would love to waterboard and shoot every last Muslim, force their children to desecrate the Qu'ran, and give their land to those filthy, filthy J00z. Releasing the torture photos isn't going to worsen their impression of us, as it is about as unfavorable as you can get without resorting to imaginary numbers. Other Arabs and Muslims might be turned to become part of the plotting and protesting demographic, but the fact that this demographic tends to also believe that everything is an Abomination Unto Allah will reduce these numbers. Arab leaders might wring their hands and denounce the West and America, but will continue meekly supplying us with oil and buying our stuff so that they may continue to live in their opulent, unsustainable lifestyles made possible by application of vast amounts of what's essentially slave labor. In short, the Muslim world's reaction to these photos doesn't matter so much, in the overall scheme of things.

For our allies, not releasing the photos will only lend more credence to the notion that the new administration plans to go right on marching to the "RAH RAH RAH PATRIOTFREEDOMAMERICAAAAA!" beat established by Bush the Lesser. Unless we like the notion of continuing to alienate our allies, this is the sort of thinking the United States ought to be trying to discourage.
User avatar
Androsphinx
Jedi Knight
Posts: 811
Joined: 2007-07-25 03:48am
Location: Cambridge, England

Re: Obama defends abuse photos U-turn

Post by Androsphinx »

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.
"what huge and loathsome abnormality was the Sphinx originally carven to represent? Accursed is the sight, be it in dream or not, that revealed to me the supreme horror - the Unknown God of the Dead, which licks its colossal chops in the unsuspected abyss, fed hideous morsels by soulless absurdities that should not exist" - Harry Houdini "Under the Pyramids"

"The goal of science is to substitute facts for appearances and demonstrations for impressions" - John Ruskin, "Stones of Venice"
Samuel
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4750
Joined: 2008-10-23 11:36am

Re: Obama defends abuse photos U-turn

Post by Samuel »

Androsphinx wrote: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.
The Republicans were trying to convince people he was secretly a Muslim- you think the Arab world bought it? If so, we need to encourage them to keep at it and provide Fox News to the Middle East. Look at how Obama is weakening America and bowing down to foreigners!

See, the insane right does have a useful purpose.
User avatar
Coyote
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 12464
Joined: 2002-08-23 01:20am
Location: The glorious Sun-Barge! Isis, Isis, Ra,Ra,Ra!
Contact:

Re: Obama defends abuse photos U-turn

Post by Coyote »

Actually, I tell you what-- I'll amend my opinion but with a BIG caveat.

If Obama released the photos, and said "the people responsible for this will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law" followed by actual trials... it would be meaningful.

But as it stands, they are looking to release the photos after already saying there will be no prosecutions. To that ends, then I still say it will only make things worse.

The people who don't want trials are the ones saying it will polarize the country, turn politics into a ongoing civil war fought in the courts, blah blah.... I say it's worth the risk. Fore the people out into the light who think it's okey-dokey to torture and see what troglodytes they are.

Releasing the photos without hammering the people behind the torture? I think it'd be worse then doing nothing, which is what we're doing now.
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."


In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around!

If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!!
Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!
User avatar
LMSx
Jedi Knight
Posts: 880
Joined: 2002-07-03 09:23pm

Re: Obama defends abuse photos U-turn

Post by LMSx »

There are evidently two ME groups that we fear might be radicalized with the photos' release: one group, currently peaceful but now motivated to violence against US troops, and the other, the Arab bourgeoisie who think Obama is the shit and would peacefully stop supporting him. I think Glenn Greenwald adequately dispatched the first notion by pointing out the already-existing magnitude of potentially inflammatory American actions completely dwarfs whatever additional rage some years-old photos might unleash. The second:
Androsphinx wrote: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.
Those unable to recognize the difference between Obama and Bush by definition would not be part of Obama's sky high popularity, which is centrally dependent on recognizing that he and George Bush are different people! If Middle Easterners are reasonable enough to distinguish the two men, revealing more of Bush's dirty laundry will not tarnish Obama.
User avatar
Androsphinx
Jedi Knight
Posts: 811
Joined: 2007-07-25 03:48am
Location: Cambridge, England

Re: Obama defends abuse photos U-turn

Post by 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?
"what huge and loathsome abnormality was the Sphinx originally carven to represent? Accursed is the sight, be it in dream or not, that revealed to me the supreme horror - the Unknown God of the Dead, which licks its colossal chops in the unsuspected abyss, fed hideous morsels by soulless absurdities that should not exist" - Harry Houdini "Under the Pyramids"

"The goal of science is to substitute facts for appearances and demonstrations for impressions" - John Ruskin, "Stones of Venice"
User avatar
LMSx
Jedi Knight
Posts: 880
Joined: 2002-07-03 09:23pm

Re: Obama defends abuse photos U-turn

Post by LMSx »

Androsphinx wrote:
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." Only the low level thugs at Abu Ghraib were held to account, and barely so considering we now know the systemic nature of abuse.

What are the reasons for secrecy? Dan Froomkin tries to figure them out:
Link
In trying to explain his startling decision to oppose the public release of more photos depicting detainee abuse, President Obama and his aides yesterday put forth six excuses for his about-face, one more flawed than the next.

First, there was the nothing-to-see-here excuse. In his remarks yesterday afternoon, Obama said the "photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib."

But as the Washington Post reports: "[O]ne congressional staff member, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the photos, said the pictures are more graphic than those that have been made public from Abu Ghraib. 'When they are released, there will be a major outcry for an investigation by a commission or some other vehicle,' the staff member said."

The New York Times reports: "Many of the photos may recall those taken at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, which showed prisoners naked or in degrading positions, sometimes with Americans posing smugly nearby, and caused an uproar in the Arab world and elsewhere when they came to light in 2004."

And if they really aren't that sensational, then what's the big deal?

Then there was the the-bad-apples-have-been-dealt-with excuse. This one, to me, is the most troubling.

Obama said the incidents pictured in the photographs "were investigated -- and, I might add, investigated long before I took office -- and, where appropriate, sanctions have been applied....[T]his is not a situation in which the Pentagon has concealed or sought to justify inappropriate action. Rather, it has gone through the appropriate and regular processes. And the individuals who were involved have been identified, and appropriate actions have been taken."

But this suggests that Obama has bought into the false Bush-administration narrative that the abuses of detainees were isolated acts, rather than part of an endemic system of abuse implicitly sanctioned at the highest levels of government. The Bushian view has been widely discredited -- and for Obama to endorse it suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the past.

The notion that responsibility for the sorts of actions depicted in those photos lies at the highest -- not lowest -- levels of government is not exactly a radical view. No less an authority than the Senate Armed Services Committee concluded in a bipartisan report: "The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of 'a few bad apples' acting on their own....The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees."

But as The Washington Post notes: "[N]o commanding officers or Defense Department officials were jailed or fired in connection with the abuse, which the Bush administration dismissed as the misbehavior of low-ranking soldiers." And the "appropriate actions," as Obama put it, have certainly not yet been taken. The architects of the system in which the abuse took place have yet to be held to account.

Then there was the no-good-would-come-of-this excuse.

Obama said it was his "belief that the publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals."

But the photos would add a lot. It was, after all, the photographs from the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq that forced the nation to acknowledge what had happened there. There is something visceral and undeniable about photographic evidence which makes it almost uniquely capable of cutting through the disinformation and denial that surrounds the issue of detainee abuse.

These photos are said to show that the kind of treatment chronicled in Abu Ghraib was in fact not limited to that one prison or one country. They would, as I wrote yesterday, serve as a powerful refutation to former vice president Cheney's so far mostly successful attempt to cast the public debate about government-sanctioned torture as a narrow one limited to the CIA's secret prisons.

Then there was the "protect-the-troops" excuse.

Said Obama: "In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger."

But the concern about the consequences of the release, while laudable on one level, is no excuse for a cover-up.

Glenn Greewald blogs for Salon: "Think about what Obama's rationale would justify. Obama's claim...means we should conceal or even outright lie about all the bad things we do that might reflect poorly on us. For instance, if an Obama bombing raid slaughters civilians in Afghanistan..., then, by this reasoning, we ought to lie about what happened and conceal the evidence depicting what was done -- as the Bush administration did -- because release of such evidence would 'would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger.' Indeed, evidence of our killing civilians in Afghanistan inflames anti-American sentiment far more than these photographs would. Isn't it better to hide the evidence showing the bad things we do?...

"How can anyone who supports what Obama is doing here complain about the CIA's destruction of their torture videos? The torture videos, like the torture photos, would, if released, generate anti-American sentiment and make us look bad. By Obama's reasoning, didn't the CIA do exactly the right thing by destroying them?"

Then there was the chilling-effect excuse.

Said Obama: "Moreover, I fear the publication of these photos may only have a chilling effect on future investigations of detainee abuse."

But how so? Under questioning, press secretary Robert Gibbs failed miserably to explain that particular rationale at yesterday's press briefing.

"f in each of these instances somebody looking into detainee abuse takes evidentiary photos in a case that's eventually concluded, this could provide a tremendous disincentive to take those photos and investigate that abuse," Gibbs said.

Q. "Wait, try that once again. I don't follow you. Where's the disincentive?"

Gibbs: "The disincentive is in the notion that every time one of these photos is taken, that it's going to be released. Nothing is added by the release of the photo, right? The existence of the investigation is not increased because of the release of the photo; it's just to provide, in some ways, a sensationalistic portion of that investigation.

"These are all investigations that were undertaken by the Pentagon and have been concluded. I think if every time somebody took a picture of detainee abuse, if every time that -- if any time any of those pictures were mandatorily going to be necessarily released, despite the fact that they were being investigated, I think that would provide a disincentive to take those pictures and investigate."

Get that? Yeah, me neither.

And finally, there was the new-argument excuse.

Gibbs said "the President isn't going back to remake the argument that has been made. The President is going -- has asked his legal team to go back and make a new argument based on national security."

But as the Los Angeles Times reports, the argument that releasing the photographs could create a backlash "was raised and rejected by a federal district court judge and the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which called the warnings of a backlash 'clearly speculative' and insufficient to warrant blocking disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

"'There's no legal basis for withholding the photographs,' said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, 'so this must be a political decision.'"
User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7955
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Obama defends abuse photos U-turn

Post by ray245 »

Androsphinx wrote:
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.)
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.
User avatar
Count Chocula
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1821
Joined: 2008-08-19 01:34pm
Location: You've asked me for my sacrifice, and I am winter born

Re: Obama defends abuse photos U-turn

Post by Count Chocula »

These men are prisoners, right? Captured in the field, shooting or attempting to shoot at, American soldiers. So they're humiliated. So what? Is humiliation such an excruciating experience in the Muslim culture that it will inflame anti-American sentiments further? I think not. Our most aggressive "enhanced interrogation technique" is waterboarding, which while not physically injurious is deemed torture by at least one SEAL who endured it in training (see Jesse Ventura thread), is a far cry from juicing up gonads with a car battery, pulling out fingernails, or other physically maiming methods of torture.

Releasing those photos would give Al-Jazeera a collective orgasm. It would do nothing to augment American security or foreign policy aims. President Obama, like his predecessors, is surprise! surprise! realizing that BEING President is a lot more difficult and nuanced than RUNNING FOR President. In my opinion, he made the right decision.
Image
The only people who were safe were the legion; after one of their AT-ATs got painted dayglo pink with scarlet go faster stripes, they identified the perpetrators and exacted revenge. - Eleventh Century Remnant

Lord Monckton is my heeerrooo

"Yeah, well, fuck them. I never said I liked the Moros." - Shroom Man 777
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Obama defends abuse photos U-turn

Post by Darth Wong »

Count Chocula wrote:These men are prisoners, right? Captured in the field, shooting or attempting to shoot at, American soldiers. So they're humiliated. So what? Is humiliation such an excruciating experience in the Muslim culture that it will inflame anti-American sentiments further? I think not.
Why is "I think not" a valid form of evidence to support your position on this?
Our most aggressive "enhanced interrogation technique" is waterboarding, which while not physically injurious is deemed torture by at least one SEAL who endured it in training (see Jesse Ventura thread), is a far cry from juicing up gonads with a car battery, pulling out fingernails, or other physically maiming methods of torture.
It is irrelevant that more grotesque forms of torture exist.
Releasing those photos would give Al-Jazeera a collective orgasm. It would do nothing to augment American security or foreign policy aims. President Obama, like his predecessors, is surprise! surprise! realizing that BEING President is a lot more difficult and nuanced than RUNNING FOR President. In my opinion, he made the right decision.
Opinion is really the only form of argument you are capable of producing, isn't it?
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Edi
Dragonlord
Dragonlord
Posts: 12461
Joined: 2002-07-11 12:27am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: Obama defends abuse photos U-turn

Post by Edi »

Count Chocula wrote:Our most aggressive "enhanced interrogation technique" is waterboarding, which while not physically injurious
Evidence, right the fuck now! In the Jesse Ventura thread, he specifically says waterboarding can lead to death by various means, such as suffocation if the subject swallows his tongue being one example. Furthermore, this utterly stupid claim of yours also displays a massive ignorance about how the human body responds to stress situations, potential injury and a scenario where sensory input is telling you that you are going to die and you can't do anything about it. The consequences of the physiological response include death as one alternative, depending on the medical condition and general health of the subject.

Go take a fucking basic Emergency First Aid course where they teach you how to give basic first responder care to various kinds of serious injuries and why some of the things should be done the way they are. Once you do that AND understand what they're actually telling you, you won't be so eager to spew this bullshit.
Warwolf Urban Combat Specialist

Why is it so goddamned hard to get little assholes like you to admit it when you fuck up? Is it pride? What gives you the right to have any pride?
–Darth Wong to vivftp

GOP message? Why don't they just come out of the closet: FASCISTS R' US –Patrick Degan

The GOP has a problem with anyone coming out of the closet. –18-till-I-die
User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7955
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Obama defends abuse photos U-turn

Post by ray245 »

Count Chocula wrote:These men are prisoners, right? Captured in the field, shooting or attempting to shoot at, American soldiers. So they're humiliated. So what? Is humiliation such an excruciating experience in the Muslim culture that it will inflame anti-American sentiments further? I think not. Our most aggressive "enhanced interrogation technique" is waterboarding, which while not physically injurious is deemed torture by at least one SEAL who endured it in training (see Jesse Ventura thread), is a far cry from juicing up gonads with a car battery, pulling out fingernails, or other physically maiming methods of torture.

Releasing those photos would give Al-Jazeera a collective orgasm. It would do nothing to augment American security or foreign policy aims. President Obama, like his predecessors, is surprise! surprise! realizing that BEING President is a lot more difficult and nuanced than RUNNING FOR President. In my opinion, he made the right decision.
Wait, just because Obama is not going to release the photos means he is supporting torture now?
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.
User avatar
hongi
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1952
Joined: 2006-10-15 02:14am
Location: Sydney

Re: Obama defends abuse photos U-turn

Post by hongi »

Captured in the field, shooting or attempting to shoot at, American soldiers.
It seems you don't know this, but a lot of prisoners were captured (kidnapped) in return for bounties or because of personal vendettas, by Pakistanis or Afghans. So not on the battlefield.
User avatar
Count Chocula
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1821
Joined: 2008-08-19 01:34pm
Location: You've asked me for my sacrifice, and I am winter born

Re: Obama defends abuse photos U-turn

Post by Count Chocula »

Edi wrote:Evidence, right the fuck now! In the Jesse Ventura thread, he specifically says waterboarding can lead to death by various means, such as suffocation if the subject swallows his tongue being one example. Furthermore, this utterly stupid claim of yours also displays a massive ignorance about how the human body responds to stress situations, potential injury and a scenario where sensory input is telling you that you are going to die and you can't do anything about it. The consequences of the physiological response include death as one alternative, depending on the medical condition and general health of the subject.
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.
Image
The only people who were safe were the legion; after one of their AT-ATs got painted dayglo pink with scarlet go faster stripes, they identified the perpetrators and exacted revenge. - Eleventh Century Remnant

Lord Monckton is my heeerrooo

"Yeah, well, fuck them. I never said I liked the Moros." - Shroom Man 777
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Obama defends abuse photos U-turn

Post by Darth Wong »

Count Chocula wrote: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.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Count Chocula
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1821
Joined: 2008-08-19 01:34pm
Location: You've asked me for my sacrifice, and I am winter born

Re: Obama defends abuse photos U-turn

Post by Count Chocula »

Darth Wong wrote: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.
The point of this thread is President Obama's refusing to release the abuse photos. Which he further defended by asserting that releasing the photos would place American soldiers at risk and that any actionable transgressions (I'm guessing Abu Ghraib-style) have been dealt with in the military courts.

Any talk of waterboarding and gang rape is off topic.

I apologize. Sincerely.
Image
The only people who were safe were the legion; after one of their AT-ATs got painted dayglo pink with scarlet go faster stripes, they identified the perpetrators and exacted revenge. - Eleventh Century Remnant

Lord Monckton is my heeerrooo

"Yeah, well, fuck them. I never said I liked the Moros." - Shroom Man 777
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Obama defends abuse photos U-turn

Post by Darth Wong »

Count Chocula wrote:
Darth Wong wrote: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.
The point of this thread is President Obama's refusing to release the abuse photos. Which he further defended by asserting that releasing the photos would place American soldiers at risk and that any actionable transgressions (I'm guessing Abu Ghraib-style) have been dealt with in the military courts.

Any talk of waterboarding and gang rape is off topic.

I apologize. Sincerely.
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.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Dominus Atheos
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3904
Joined: 2005-09-15 09:41pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: Obama defends abuse photos U-turn

Post by Dominus Atheos »

Count Chocula wrote:
Edi wrote:Evidence, right the fuck now! In the Jesse Ventura thread, he specifically says waterboarding can lead to death by various means, such as suffocation if the subject swallows his tongue being one example. Furthermore, this utterly stupid claim of yours also displays a massive ignorance about how the human body responds to stress situations, potential injury and a scenario where sensory input is telling you that you are going to die and you can't do anything about it. The consequences of the physiological response include death as one alternative, depending on the medical condition and general health of the subject.
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.
Page 15 of the May 10th 2005 Bradbury memo originally authorizing torture:
In our limited experience, extensive use of the waterboard can introduce new risks. Most seriously, for reasons of physical fatigue or psychological resignation, the subject may simply give up, allowing excessive filling of the airways and loss of consciousness. An unresponsive subject should be righted immediately and the interrogator should deliver a sub-xyphoid thrust to expel the water. If this fails to restore normal breathing, aggressive medical intervention is required.
Even the people who came up with the techniques realized they could be lethal.
User avatar
Count Chocula
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1821
Joined: 2008-08-19 01:34pm
Location: You've asked me for my sacrifice, and I am winter born

Re: Obama defends abuse photos U-turn

Post by Count Chocula »

Darth Wong wrote: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.

If you want to equate my ignorance with evasion, fine. Enlighten me. Where's your evidence? Where are these pictures? You don't have them, neither do I, neither do any of the other posters. We're all whistling in the wind here.

EDIT: Dominus, that's not proof. It's further confirmation that the technique is torture, but not confirmation that any deaths or injuries have occurred.
Image
The only people who were safe were the legion; after one of their AT-ATs got painted dayglo pink with scarlet go faster stripes, they identified the perpetrators and exacted revenge. - Eleventh Century Remnant

Lord Monckton is my heeerrooo

"Yeah, well, fuck them. I never said I liked the Moros." - Shroom Man 777
User avatar
Edi
Dragonlord
Dragonlord
Posts: 12461
Joined: 2002-07-11 12:27am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: Obama defends abuse photos U-turn

Post by Edi »

Count Chocula wrote:EDIT: Dominus, that's not proof. It's further confirmation that the technique is torture, but not confirmation that any deaths or injuries have occurred.
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?
Warwolf Urban Combat Specialist

Why is it so goddamned hard to get little assholes like you to admit it when you fuck up? Is it pride? What gives you the right to have any pride?
–Darth Wong to vivftp

GOP message? Why don't they just come out of the closet: FASCISTS R' US –Patrick Degan

The GOP has a problem with anyone coming out of the closet. –18-till-I-die
User avatar
Count Chocula
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1821
Joined: 2008-08-19 01:34pm
Location: You've asked me for my sacrifice, and I am winter born

Re: Obama defends abuse photos U-turn

Post by Count Chocula »

Edi wrote: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.
Image
The only people who were safe were the legion; after one of their AT-ATs got painted dayglo pink with scarlet go faster stripes, they identified the perpetrators and exacted revenge. - Eleventh Century Remnant

Lord Monckton is my heeerrooo

"Yeah, well, fuck them. I never said I liked the Moros." - Shroom Man 777
User avatar
Elfdart
The Anti-Shep
Posts: 10702
Joined: 2004-04-28 11:32pm

Re: Obama defends abuse photos U-turn

Post by Elfdart »

Count Chocula wrote:These men are prisoners, right? Captured in the field, shooting or attempting to shoot at, American soldiers.
Says who? Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was busted by the police in Pakistan. Most of the people in Bagram, Guantanamo and Abu Graib were rounded up in dragnet arrests.
So they're humiliated. So what? Is humiliation such an excruciating experience in the Muslim culture that it will inflame anti-American sentiments further? I think not.
Humiliating prisoners is wrong no matter what their religion or ethnic background. German officers were prosecuted for making American POWs walk through the streets in Rome, where mobs could jeer them and pelt them with garbage. I guess you think the Nazis deserve an apology.
Our most aggressive "enhanced interrogation technique" is waterboarding,
No, our most aggressive forms of torture are:

a) anally raping adolescent boys at Abu Ghraib

b) beating a cab driver to death at Bagram

c) killing another hundred or so prisoners in US custody

d) chaining an inmate in Guantanamo to the floor and leaving him wallow in his own feces for up to 24 hours

e) slashing the genitals of a prisoner with a razor because he admitted to reading a piece of satire on a web page

And many more.

Releasing those photos would give Al-Jazeera a collective orgasm.
So?
It would do nothing to augment American security or foreign policy aims.
Sure it would. If the facts are laid bare, there's a chance that these sadistic fucktards will face prosecution or at least lose their jobs. Torture has already cost this country over 4000 lives and led to the nation's humiliating defeat in Iraq. The war and the atrocities committed bankrupted the country and ruined Uncle Sam's reputation forever.
President Obama, like his predecessors, is surprise! surprise! realizing that BEING President is a lot more difficult and nuanced than RUNNING FOR President. In my opinion, he made the right decision.
Nuances are, except in classical music, a euphemism for craven bullshit. Obama is being a coward and now he's an accessory. There's no difference between his handling of torture and other war crimes, and an elected official in the Jim Crow south who not only refuses to stop lynchings, not only refuses to investigate -let alone bring the killers to justice- but agrees to hide photos taken while the lynching was in progress.
Post Reply