Anderson Cooper discusses barry’s reversal on the release of the torture photos. With him are Ms Amrit Singh of the ACLU and GOP strategist Kevin Madden. I’ve watched and read this several times and have come to my own conclusions. I’ve also read Ms Singh’s initial argument from her Huffington Post entry from March discussed here.
Do you think Ms Singh ever makes her case?
Is there anything else than “the public needs to know”?
The very same public that has been polled with the majority saying they did not want a torture investigation. I don’t know if they have been polled directly on whether they think the photos should be released. I’ll have to check.
Do you think Ms Singh has an ulterior motive?
If so, what you think it is?
VOTERSTHINKdotORG
CNN TRANSCRIPT (Starts at 3;55)
COOPER: Nevertheless the president at the very least hopes to delay their release, saying that making them public now would cause harm to U.S. troops. Joining me now is Amrit Singh of the ACLU, who you saw in Ed Henry’s report. Also Republican strategist Kevin Madden. Amrit, what is wrong with the president trying to protect American troops and tamp down any anti-American sentiment?
SINGH: It is essential that these photographs be released so that the public can know the full scale and scope of prisoner abuse that took place in its name. President Obama’s decision today really does make a mockery of his promise of transparency and accountability.
COOPER: But why are these photos are so essential? If it’s already known what happened? If there’s already been reporting about it, why the photos so essential?
SINGH: Because they convey information that has not been conveyed before about what the abuse actually was. It’s important for the public to see for itself exactly what was done to these victims of abuse. It is only through public airing of these photographs that individuals who authorized torture and prisoner abuse can really be held accountable for what’s depicted in these photos. If they’re suppressed, how will the public know what was done in its name?
[Goes from essential to important. No explanation of how the photos are going to lead to accountability.]
COOPER: Kevin, everyone wants to protect American troops. What about transparency? What about the truth? Doesn’t that matter?
KEVIN MADDEN, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, I disagree entirely with the argument that showing these photos would be essential. I think what’s essential here and the argument that President Obama has made is national security indications, implications of releasing them and the fury of propaganda that would be unleashed against U.S. forces overseas.
I think — I don’t have to see a body to know there’s been a murder, but I think if the police were to present enough evidence, we could make that argument. I think what has happened here is that we have seen punishment of these people who have engaged in detainee abuse. That’s what’s most important and moving forward and understanding the national security implications of not releasing these photos.
COOPER: Kevin, is knowing what happened in Abu Ghraib the same as seeing the photos in Abu Ghraib? You could have had a report about well some detainees were abused in the Abu Ghraib prison, but to actually see what happened to them, didn’t that open it up in a way that the truth wouldn’t have been known before?
[The photos from Abu Gharib are released. They are out there for folks to see. Yes, it opened up the truth in a shocjing and visceral way that memos could not. And the president said that the photos in questions are not comparable to Abu Gharib. There is no argument there.]
MADDEN: Well, I think what’s important to remember, Anderson, on that point is that a photo is in of itself an event, it is not a pattern. And what we saw with those photos were events of detainee abuse and events that were eventually investigated and then punished. I think what the left is doing, the anti-war left is trying to use this event, trying to use these photos to make an argument — to use them as a vendetta against the Bush administration. And in that process, what they’re doing is essentially smearing the country as a country that condones detainee abuse and condones the torture, when in fact we don’t.
[Bingo. Though they have started to realize that Nancy Pelosi's fate also hangs in the balance and she didn't doing herself or the rest of the Democrats any favors yesterday. And they know that barry's fate is intertwined with Pelosi's. He sat in the Senate at some point - even though he made sure to mention that all this took place before he took office.
How often and how vehemently did he protest waterboarding before it became a campaign issue? And are there still folks among you who belief he is actually going to close Gitmo in a year? Have you read the fine print in his executive order? If you needed a hint the military tribunals he was going to abolish are set to resume. With the caveat that none of the information gained through torture is admissible. barry at his most expedient best.]
COOPER: Let me ask Amrit about that because don’t we actually now know that these are not just isolated incidents, that there is actually a pattern from policies that were made by the Bush administration to things that were done in Guantanamo and then were done in Bagram Air Base and then were done at Abu Ghraib. There is a connection.
[If they are already connected he discounts his argument that the photos would be new information.]
SINGH: Absolutely. And that photograph that you just showed of Lynndie England dragging a prisoner on a leash on the ground is a reflection of policies that were put in place by Secretary Rumsfeld at Guantanamo Bay. Mohammed Al Kahtani was subjected to the same techniques at Guantanamo Bay. He was led around on a leash naked and what you see in those Abu Ghraib photos is a direct link to what was authorized by the highest levels of officials.
[She is making an argument about another - separate - lawsuit, which I do believe has come in to play with this issue. From her face and the tome of her words she finds Lynndie England disgusting and she has great anger toward Rumsfeld. Take careful note of what stirs the most "outrage" in her. This tops the list as does her last statements. What do you see and hear?]
COOPER: Kevin, we know at least 100 people died in U.S. custody, at least 20 of those were investigated as homicides. Do you really believe that everybody who went too far, who committed abuses has already been brought to justice? You think we already know all there is to know?
MADDEN: Well, I think that we can only go based on the evidence we have, and I think the military has in place –
COOPER: But the evidence we have are those photographs, we’re not going off those.
MADDEN: Well I think we have enough evidence within the military and procedures put in place to investigate these detainee abuses and make sure that those that do engage in detainee abuse are then punished. I think that what happens with these photos is that they would sensationalize actual events that have taken place and make it seem that it was not just a pattern, but a widespread pattern, when in fact that’s not the case.
[What was the point of the photographs in the first place?]
COOPER: Amrit, to the point about protecting American troops, particularly at a time when the war in Afghanistan is at a critical juncture, as if frankly the war in Iraq, there is a strong argument though that this inflame anti-American passions and potentially harm U.S. troops.
SINGH: But what is the limit of that argument? If gross human rights violations have been committed, do you sweep them under the rug because they will cause outrage? In a democracy, it is essential to air this information. President Obama –
[Back to the academic "essential" and abstract "in a democracy". They have not been swept under the rug. They have been documented and the people responsible are being sanctioned. The photos - no matter how much she wants to believe - will not make the gross human rights violations any more or less heinous.
Torture is absolute.
Showing photos is not going to change that. Ever. What was done to those men is done. It cannot be taken back or undone. Torture should not - in an circumstance - be used. But handing those photos to America's enemies would directly lead to violence and torture of Americans. An absolute undeniable fact - whether or not one chooses denial or willing disregard.
The very fact that Ms Singh uses the term "outrage" demonstrates she has not taken into account the fact that the US is at war. Our enemies do not deal in "outrage". They deal in blind hate toward any and all Americans and even those loyal to our cause. They deal in beheadings, genital mutilations, rape, child marriages, acid and poison gas attacks on little girls wanting simply to educate themselves. They encourage their own relatives to blow themselves up to further their own fame. They bomb their own innocent civilians to blame it on the US. They use violence for violence sake, which she herself says.
One wonders what is blocking her sight?
And the limit is one American. Allowing those photos to get out would directly lead to the generation of more evil. The evil depicted in the photos begetting more evil.
No matter how she couches it with "the public needs to know" - no good can, or will ever, come from those pictures. Never. That is undeniable fact that she has chosen to subjugate to her own motivation.]
COOPER: No matter the implications?
SINGH: Well, look, we live in a dangerous world, but the terrorists have no dearth of pretext at their disposal to conduct violence. That’s a fact. I mean, they can generate false information. They can conduct all the violence they want without the release of these photographs.
[Precisely. They already hate. They already murder and torture indiscriminately. They are evil incarnate. They don't need propaganda. And supplying it to them would give them a false sense of justification. Evil never justifies the propagation of more evil.]
SINGH: So to pick on these photographs as the cause of violence I think is a grave mistake. There were people who suffered immensely, the victims of torture depicted in these photographs. It’s for their sake and for the sake of future victims of torture that these photographs must be aired.
[Her argument does not follow. There is absolutely no cause and effect. And, again, she completely glosses over the effect the photos will have in a time of war - even after admitting herself that our enemies engage in unprovoked attacks. So why provoke? Which, undeniably, is what the photos will do and it is all they are capable of doing. The photos inherently will not bring about accountability or prevent future torture and she knows that.
She laid out the argument against their release and didn’t even realize it – because her argument is based on emotion. She has a personal stake in the matter. What, I don’t know. And the mere fact she does not acknowledge it and instead uses “the public needs to know” says a great deal about her own character.
Read and listen. Her own words make clear she doesn’t care about what happens after they are released. That she is interested only that they be released. That she cares only about those already tortured, who, again, cannot be untortured. And though she pays lip service in the last sentence to “future victims” she does not have the simple integrity to acknowledge that the “future victims of torture” will be Americans and that it will be directly because of the photos.
Who does she think she is fooling?
There is no doubt that what was done to them was unconscionable and never should have happened.
There is no doubt that the violation of their human rights needs to be documented and acknowledged and those responsible held accountable – all of which is being done and all of which can be accomplished independent of the photos release. Release of the photos will not lead to accountability because they already have been held accountable or will be. That’s a fact.
Whatever evil was perpetrated on those men does not IN ANY WAY justify the use of that evil to promote more. And that is what will happen if those photos are released. And that is what she knows will happen and she demonstrates no concern. She comes from a mindset that I would like to know more about. It is a mindset of vengeance and an eye for an eye. She is not concerned with the use of evil already perpetrated to promote fresh evil and justifies it by saying their evil already exists. This for her is personal and she does not have the integrity to admit to it – illegitimizing every one of her arguments.
I wonder if she is aware how naked her motivation is?
She doesn’t in the least bit care about “the public”. Airing those photos will make the tortured in those photos martyrs and she knows it. And the line about it’s for their sake and the sake of future victims is as disingenuous as it gets.
What she is admitting is that she does not trust barry to keep his promise of not torturing. Because if she did – if she actually listened and heard what he had to say – she would realize how utterly foolish that last statement is. And by saying it – she makes clear that she doesn’t care what happens to American servicemembers. That she is 100% willing to put her own selfish motives ahead of their safety and security.
One has to wonder on what side of the pond her loyalties lie.
———
ACLU’s Amrit Singh’s justification for release of photos
To the ACLU re: release of torture photos
POTUS re: release of torture photos
ACLU’s Amrit Singh, Anderson Cooper, Kevin Madden re: photo release
No comments:
Post a Comment