This might make sense if we were still torturing, but releasing the pictures now won’t end torture (it is already ended without them) and might confuse people into thinking we are still doing it. As for apologizing, he said very clearly it was wrong and unacceptable. Much better than an apology - consider how many politicians apologize insincerely. “I’m sorry that you were offended by my insensitive comment. I’ll keep on doing it, but I’ll try to make sure you don’t hear them in the future.” Nah, I like Obama’s way much better.
It does endanger American lives (military and civilian). It’s pretty much standard procedure to download these pictures, copy them, and use them in training camps to indoctrinate trainees on the “American way of life” and why it’s their duty to end it. (Both sides in a war are always on the right side; always)
In lots of places, the only things kids/teens might ever know about America is those pictures and what their elders tell them.
Now, whether this is moot because a lot of the Abu Ghraib pictures are already widely distributed is debatable.
(I know lots of things put American lives in danger, but that doesn’t mean releasing pictures for all to see isn’t a valid reason too; I’m putting this here b/c of all the inevitable “well blank n blank puts us in danger” posts and I’m about to leave).
Well, I don’t.
Barry was a lesser evil with some good effects for me. I can consider him preferable to McCain (& even to Hillary) while still loathing his policy on Rule of Law.
That’s a whoosh, right?
If not…I’m holding a rock in my hand. It keeps monsters away. Proof? I don’t see any monsters, do you?
(That’s what your “logic” makes me think of)
As for the OP’s question, no, it’s not okay. When I heard it this morning, I started cursing at the TV. Obama’s decision is pissing me off.
Another wrinkle: it appears (on cursory examination) that we are talking about pictures of people in military custody, with prisoners taken in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a different kettle of piranha.
Foremost, the torture horror we are most aware of is centered around intelligence gathering, by way of the CIA and whoever these “contractors” are. Interrogations intended to wring every last drop out of the victim, by whatever means. Strategic, if you will.
If these are more or less “battlefield” incidents, then the prisoners are being “tactically” interrogated: where did you plant an IED? Where can we find explosives?, that sort of thing. And somewhat murkier.
In this instance, a good case can be made that useful info would save lives. More importantly, perhaps, being conducted by military personnel, it would be that much more tempting to cross the line in order to save one’s own. It would be inhumane not to recognize the compelling emotion of mutual protection that combat troops become steeped in.
Thing is, that sort of info is immediate, its shelf-life is a matter of hours: the bombs either have already gone off or been found, the explosives moved, transitory information that renders the detainee obsolete very quickly. Then, of course, whether he’s spilled his guts or no, he is no longer worth hassling with, yesterday’s news. Which is to say, even if he were mistreated once, it is unlikely to happen again. Not due to the humanity of the captors, but the practical facts: yesterday’s papers are not worth reading.
The kind of regimen applied to the “high-value” subjects, involving multiple and repetitious barbarity, is “strategic”, looking for bigger issues. Hence, more than a hundred incidents visited on a single person.
So, if this is the case, it is likely that the photos depict more of the “roughing up” sort of interrogation by soldiers, rather than the cynical and callous torture by spooks. A difference in degree, at the very least. (Perhaps this is what is implied by the somewhat cryptic phrase not sensational").
If this is so, I am much less concerned with seeing them. If I can be assured of an impartial revue of the photos and an accurate synopsis of what is depicted, and further be assured that the implicated will be held accountable, that is acceptable.
I understand the contradiction. All I can say is that because I don’t consider Obama a bad person, his actions, to me, shines a different light than if it were someone I disliked
Its not the length of the record that impresses me, but what he has done in his short time in office and since he’s caught national attention. Compared to the previous guy who instigated a war without cause, attacked innocent countries, locked up people regardless of guilt, and supported torture, Obama’s been a breath of fresh air in many respects (I say “many”, lemme get to that in a bit). What progress had Bush made in these respects? None at all. What has Obama done? Well he’s given the order to close Guantanamo, he’s considering avenues for people who’ve been trapped in a legal black hole for years, he’s withdrawing from a wrongly attacked country, and not purposefully incited countries like Iran by calling them names. So compared to Bush, he’s done a whole lot for progress, and he’s been able to keep many of his promises that us liberals have been hoping he would back when Obama first ran for president. THAT is what has given me hope about him, not his pretty speeches or his lack of a long tenured political career. The fact that he has done much good so far, and asked us to be patient instead of outright lying about it, allows me to give him a lot of leeway and build his credibility. That is why I trust Obama and that is why I see his actions differently
We can use Dick Cheney as an example. According to most people, especially liberals, he’s a terrible and evil fiend. Yet he has pushed back on one really contentious issue: gay marriage. He does not support, last time I heard, a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Do I think he’s a good guy now? Hell no! The reason is because we all know his daughter’s gay. Dick Cheney’s not doing it because he’s a good guy or he’s got a spark of enlightenment inside that Vader helmet of a dome, its because he’s a self prick whose own self-interest, in this case, overrides those of his party. I wouldnt take his endorsement for gay marriage any more than I would be willing to let him march in a gay rights parade. I know where’s he coming from, he’s selfish and its in his own self-interest to do so. He’s not doing it cause he thinks gays should have rights, but simply because he’s got a daughter who’s gay. If she died tomorrow I bet it’s the last we’ll hear from Cheney about being against the amendment
An honest opinion; I understand what you mean.
Which to the detainees means they will be detained elsewhere. This is categorically a move (correctly) for perception. GTMO is a tainted lease.
I posted above he voted so detainees in GTMO would not have access to the statutory writ of habeas corpus in 2005. Something to keep in mind.
This thread is based on a “consideration” to detain people w/o charges indefinitely. I don’t see anything different going on than what was already on a previous course to be happening now.
because we can do so. Plus, the troops leaving Iraq =/ troops coming home [not that you implied that].
Very true…how childish was that. I mean, really.
I think he’s done more to change the perception of what is happening. I’m not saying that as a knock, it was extremely important to do so, and he’s doing a great job of it. I’m not as convinced as you that he’s made substantive changes, although I’m not saying he won’t. Those take time.
We got through World War II without torture? You’re kidding me, right? Have you ever actually SPOKEN to anyone who was in WW II? All the old-timers I know were well aware of the “spirited questioning” techniques used, and some were actually participants.
Do I have more faith in unexplained decisions by President Obama than I did those by Bush? Of course! By a measure of thousands!
Do I still want to know the reasons behind these two most recent decisions by the President? Absolutely!
Would I be more believing of President Obama’s explanation than Bush’s? Yes. Bush has an established history of Great Big Lies. Obama does not.
Is changing one’s mind a lie? Not unless you intentionally set it up that way in the beginning.
Ok. Bigger Than 9/11. Bigger Than The War In Iraq!
The Battle Of Stalingrad.
What do y’all think?
But this argument contradicts the argument that being tough with America’s enemies makes them cower and quake. What is it? When America is tough do they shit their pants or do they get angry and become more combative and endanger American lives?
If showing them that they might get tortured makes them fight back why does that not apply to generally all other tough policies? Why other “soft” policies are blamed as sissy bleeding heart liberal who want to “understand” and talk to terrorists when the only message terrorists understand is shooting at them? Why?
American policies in Irak have alienated the Iraqi people and endangered American lives and yet supporters of the war do not use the “endangers American lives” but, on the contrary, support those tough policies.
The truth is that the reason some do not want these photos published is not because it endangers lives but because they paint an ugly picture of America and the politicians who support these policies.
I think it’s more of a longer term vs. short term thing. Pictures of Americans torturing Muslims leads to generational distaste of America. You’ll never believe anything less than America is the Great Satan after seeing pictures like that at a young and influential age. You saw the truth with your own eyes.
Any military person (terrorist) with a grain of intelligence would show these pictures to young Muslims to have soldiers for life.
I’m not quite sure I understand what you’re getting at. I’ll answer what i think, but if it’s not, then you might have to explain it differently.
I don’t think the terrorists care whether they get tortured or use them to show others they might get tortured. They use them to “prove” America is pure evil and needs to be wiped clean. The fact that they might have to kill some people to rid the Great Satan off the earth is justified in their eyes because it will result in a greater good.
I think that is a truth. I think there are many “truths” though. It’s Obama’s job to weigh them and decide on the best course of action keeping in mind both short term and longer term goals.
On the one hand the hawks say we should never talk or negotiate with terrorists because it shows weakness and because they will “hate us anyway”. The only way to diminish the threat is by being extremely tough with them. That’s the only language they understand. Defeat them and beat them into submission. Show them that any move against American interests will be countered with crushing force.
So, according to that line of thinking, it seems these photos should be publicised. This is what might happen to you if we catch you. Fear.
And yet now that same crowd talks about America’s image and endangering lives. The same thing they accused the soft-hearted anti-war crowd of doing. When that crowd said that by being ruthless you are creating anti-American sentiment and endangering American lives they were met with scorn because “they will hate us anyway”, etc. So what is it? Do America’s actiuons have an effect in creating enmity or don’t they?
In my opinion it is extreme cowardice to not publish these photos. The world should know the truth and America needs to own up to its responsibilities.
Of course, there is a moment for everything and Obama might consider that it may be better to release them later rather than now. He, personally, has not been eager to prosecute the torture issue but that has taken a life of its own and he can just wait for it to boil over and that way he will not be seen as the instigator. This issue is not going away any time soon and these photos may be better released at a better chosen moment when they provide a more effective blow to the criminals who are trying to get away with having tortured.
Taking a second look at this… Obama has admitted that there was more torture going on than just at Abu Grahib (sp?), as he has the photos to prove it. I bet it is worse than what we’ve already seen.
Releasing them could bias future juries if people are to be put on trial for torture-related crimes. It could lead to somebody escaping justice down the line.
Plus, this is turning into a hugely divisive issue. For some Americans, this behavior means America really isn’t worth fighting for anymore, as it doesn’t stand for the ideals it used to but instead a bunch of mean-spirited, tyrannical bullshit.
For other Americans, the torture issue is like porn. They can’t get enough- they just loooove the idea that our boys are over there sticking it to the Muslims, or the ‘terrorists’, or whoever it is they think we’re fighting. I don’t think I’m mistaken about this- opinion columns and message boards are Crammed with support for torture and drooling over the prospect of more- haven’t you noticed? Releasing the photos would be giving these types what they want.
So. Torture photos have already been released. The issue is already defined. It is hard to see what good can come of more sensationalism. Let’s cut to the trials.
The bottom line though is that it is tragic we would sink so low over such a two-bit threat. There is seemingly no point to fighting in Iraq. There is no point to Afghanistan either if you believe 9/11 was a setup. I don’t want to open that debate here, but whatever stand you take on those questions, neither of these countries can pose much serious threat. We don’t need an army, we need police work.
Compare to the Battle of Stalingrad. Having conquered most of Europe, the Germans march across Russia, capturing or killing millions of Russians. They come within miles of Moscow, and if they succeed, who will stop them? That’s a threat. A one-off where some guys with knives get lucky and take down 2 buildings is no joke, but neither is it the least bit comparable. Yet we’ve thrown away our ideals, reputation, and economy in response to the two buildings.
Our response to the ‘terrorists’ has caused us more harm than they ever could cause. Obama doesn’t have good choices whichever way he goes.
I burning your analogy!
Is Rudy G. using Tim as a sock puppet? One has to ask.
But let’s take the op seriously.
In general, no, Obama doesn’t get a free pass. OTOH context does matter, how actions fit into an overall pettern of behavior and decisions matter. Bush got broad support after 9/11 and for a long time after that, even in these parts. The country, even most of us, believed him when his administration claimed that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Those of us who objected to going in before hand were outnumbered even here. The Bushbashing reflex response developed after he proved how awful he was.
Maybe Obama will consistently disappoint (although I doubt it and he has not yet) but so far the Democrats gave Bush much more of a chance, and much more support in the time of crisis at the start of his terms, than the base of the GOP is giving Obama in this time of crisis. And Obama’s core is much more willing to snipe at him than Bush’s core ever was to snipe at Bush no matter what awful action he took.
No, not really. If Bush did something, it’s because he fell into it by accident. Or was tricked into it by Cheney or Rumsfeld. Or God told him to do it.
When Obama does something, it is because he has talked to dozens of experts in a wide continuum of opinion. When one or more of them fails to speak up, he calls upon them to hear their opinion. He has thought it thoroughly through, and by the time he makes his decision, he is nearly as conversant and knoweldgable about the topic as the experts he has consulted.
In other words, he listens, then he learns, then he thinks, then he makes a decision.
If it so happens that on rare occasions what Obama decides to do coincides to a lesser or greater degree with what Bush decided to do, it is like a thoughtful person selecting a regular banana over a banana hooked to a live electrical wire after a monkey has done the same thing by sheer chance.
I would say that one, perception counts, especially since we’re trying to win over countries and entire religions, and two, he said it’ll take a year, so I am willing to give him until that time to place all the rest of the detainees. That’s not to say that some will still be detained, but I have better faith in Obama to release those we cannot convict than Bush
Is a statutory writ of habeas corpus the same as giving them the right to challenge their detention? I’m afraid I’m no lawyer so I don’t know if there are any minute differences.
Because I trust Obama more, I’m more willing to bet that this “consideration” will amount to better results than the previous administration
Its still better than before. He is not defending 100 years in Iraq or using a secret, nebulous timeline. He’s setting dates, getting troops out of there, and actually doing what he promised. No, they may not be coming home, but at least they’re not being extended and overstretched as much as in Iraq, and at least by going into Afghanistan, we’ll be attacking the correct people
There is a lot I wish he would do, but then I’m not the president so I cant easily imagine what other pressures he’s subjected to. By maintaining his credibility and proving he’s capable of rational and deliberate thinking, I think he’s doing close to as much as possible in the short time he’s enjoyed in the White House. If I were president, I would probably be a lot like Bush, except the exact opposite in ideology. I’d use executive powers and unilaterally act on what I believe is right, to hell with anyone who opposes me!, and generally be an ass about what I believe is right. Maybe some liberals would like that, given the shit we’ve taken from the right wing over the past decade plus. I’m actually glad Obama’s taking it slow
Yes. “giving them the right to challenge their detention” is a very good way of understanding it, too. The writ means you’re asking your detainer (the Executive in this case) to show a legal cause (point to a law) of why I’m being detained.
At this point they’ve got a constitutional right to the writ, so it’s moot. The focus now is on how much process they are due in court.
That’s all true. But I still don’t think that means there won’t be substantive forces (ie, 10k-20k?) in Iraq through his entire 8yr presidency.
I personally think McCain and Obama would have reached similar points, but were speaking to two different crowds.
Obama is a better politician. You can’t alienate people even if you’re right. Obama wants to be right and have public support. You do this by tying your actions/power to authorized statutes giving you that power. These statutes were enacted by Congressman who were elected by the public at large.
Obama is smart (and a lawyer), he never denied he didn’t have inherent executive powers. Those are kept in his ankle holster just in case.