Today was the day they were supposed to be released. But it seems that just today, by an astonishing coincidence! they have discovered a technicality of some sort that gives them legal grounds to withold them…
Revoltingly transparent, like a wart-hog ugly skank in a lacy pegnoir. Had the pictures for months, tied themselves in knots trying to find a legal rationale not to release them and just today…Friday, of course!..they discover to their evident surprise that hey! these might endanger somebody’s “physical safety”.
Guys, forget it. Get it over with. Nobody believes you anymore, don’t you see that? If they aren’t as bad as Rummy says, don’t let the imagination run wild. And if they are, you’re just making it worse, letting it fester. Sweet Og, when will they ever fucking learn.
They’ll only learn when willfully ignorant, crap buying, bullshit-swallowing, fairy-tale believing, entirely credulous and utterly backward American sheep stop voting for them.
And that will be far, far too late (maybe 500 years or more, if ever).
So, explain something to me please. Was private England guilty of these more disturbing crimes, or do we only prosecute people when photos of their crimes are released?
You’re confused. It’s not the actions that were photographed, it’s that the actions were photographed. That’s what Rumsfeld is so outraged about. That’s why cameras are forbidden but torture isn’t.
And once again, the people in charge will deny everything, launch personal attacks on anyone who has a problem with this sort of behavior, and keep on keepin’ on.
These photos & movies document raping of women and sodomy of young boys.
We’ve known about it for a year, and still there’s no real outrage in this country. The rest of the world knows about it, and trust me, they’re not happy.
That’s what this administration (and everyone who supports them) stands for:
Let’s get one thing straight here: I hate Bush, I’m a card carrying member of the ACLU.
These types of comments do nothing usefull for our cause. Particularly your use of the words “systematic” (deliberately planned) “and everyone who supports them.” Potential converts from the Bush camp won’t be won over by being told they support raping children. It’s shit like this that causes fence sitters to jump the fence in the wrong direction! Can’t we liberals get that?
I’m willing to believe Bush was grossly negligent in this Abu Ghraib matter, but even I refuse to believe that he and his advisors got into a smoke filled room, twirling their mustaches and discussing the finer points of raping women and children.
I made a longer reply in the other thread about this. Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Gonzales etc DID get into a flap (which was quickly forgotten) about how to “legally” use torture. Apparently (obviously) it is policy. Apparently, Bush is fighting to keep this hush hush and out of the news. SInce it has been going on for a while now, and since Bush wants to hide it, what the hell do you think? As commander in chief, he could have simply issued an order that all this had to stop immediately. He never did. Now he is trying to bury the evidence.
Freedom? No
Good christian ideals? No.
Covering up war crimes, torture, rape, murder? Yes.
Maybe systematic is the wrong word. Should I have used ‘routine’, ‘occasional’, or ‘government endorsed’?
Perhaps you’d like to argue semantics, but I’m too outraged.
There’s no way, and no real reason, to put a pretty face on the actions of this administration. Your complaint is that the truth might hurt the feelings of the fools who support this evil.
You know, I bet there were people who thought the same thing about Germany in the 1930’s. I’m sorry, but “don’t rock the boat, you’ll hurt our cause” is a loser’s game.
Let me ask you a quick question here. How do YOU know whats going on at Abu Ghraib? Could it be because the information is, well, available to our press and you, um, read it somewhere? Now, about the Germany thing…I’d say its quite plausable that tehre WERE folks in Germany even in the 1940’s who didn’t really know what was going on. In fact, my guess is while the majority MIGHT have had a clue what was going on, it was more from rumor and hearsay than actual facts. See the difference? Probably not but I had to try…
As to the OP…well, we’ve know about Abu Ghraib and that ‘bad things’ happened there for quite a while. Obviously these new pictures are from the same events before…they aren’t new pictures in the sense that ‘bad things’ are STILL happening there. From what I understand the publishing of even the lesser pictures was enough to get changes made.
I’m going to need some convincing though that the rape and beatings near to death were “systematic” or even “government endorsed”. Oh, I have no doubt that torture was endorsed by the government, and thats bad enough though I suppose its understandable and perhaps even necessary (depending on what one means by ‘torture’ but thats a whole other can of worms), but though I loath the Bush administration I find it extremely hard to believe that they officially sanctioned rape, let alone rape of children. I’d need some fairly extra-ordinary proof to go with that (to my mind) extra-ordinary claim.
How long until Rush Limbaugh (R - Drug Addict) pontificates that these latest photos are no worse than what goes on at a typical fraternity initiation? I say sometime early next week.