According to FOX, a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, Mullah Zakir (aka Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul) is leading the fight against the Marines’ Operation Khanjar in the Helmand province of Afghanistan. Zakir surrendered in Afghanistan in 2001 – was transferred to Gitmo in 2006 and then was released to Afghan custody 2007. Not sure what the “custody” entails because he was “released” from it in 2008. Shortly thereafter Taliban chief Mullah Omar appointed him as senior military commander.
Why was he released?
They quote an anonymous defense official:
We were under incredible pressure from the world to release detainees at Gitmo. You just don’t know what people are going to do.
He was no worse than anyone else being held at Guantanamo Bay. He was not going to be tried for war crimes so we decided to release him. Either he was not thought to have committed a crime or we didn’t have enough evidence to prosecute him.
The country which agreed to take him promised to take steps to mitigate the threat he posed.
How are they going to do that and what is their incentive?
So what hasn’t barry gone back on? Iraq – yes. A fairy tale since that politically expedient speech in 2002. Mr Bill was 100% correct and yet he was crucified by the barry media, who the ignorant cultfollowers believed without bothering to check. They based their vote on complete fiction and proudly proclaimed that was why they were voting for barry. And now they are buying the lie of “transparency” which he has been anything but,
Anyway, CIA interrogations should be released – not. Torture photos should be released – not. Military commissions should be stopped – not. Gitmo should be closed – too early to tell but the fine print gives him an out – an out he will most assuredly will take. And let’s watch what he does with the detainees found to be not guilty – that Gibbs refuses to answer because it is “hypothetical”.
Q A quick follow on something else, the CIA interrogation tapes. Why is the administration trying to block the release of the Bush-era documents on the CIA interrogation tapes, when previously you released Bush-era memos and said you didn’t really have a national security concern about it because these methods were already out there, the media had reported on it?
MR. GIBBS: Well, but understand — I think if you look at particularly at some of the memos that were released, you see that there was some redaction taken to ensure highly sensitive information. Obviously a great amount of the information contained in those memos were known by your network and others, and have been for quite some time. They’ve been in the media, they’ve been in books; the people in the previous administration have written communications back and forth involved in some of these cables. You can’t redact that information. That’s what it is.
The President believes, the administration believes that that material is highly sensitive.
[Now - when they are aware of the ramifications and not what the poss and people want to hear.]
Q But the CIA is saying that this could be a recruiting tool for al Qaeda. Haven’t you said previously the President has been removing recruiting tools by ending torture to begin with?
MR. GIBBS: Yes, and that was one of the reasons that the larger framework of those memos — again, those tactics were — I’ve used this example with you before — the graphic that you all had about waterboarding wasn’t a graphic that was created after the release and the reading of these memos. It’s been something that’s been discussed, my guess is, for many, many hours on your network.
but what’s really making him mad is Cheney’s picking on barry. Which is why Cheney is doing it and Larry’s reaction is why Chenye isn’t about to stop.
What is going on with Larry O’Donnell? He have a bad case of Irish flu and not enough hair of the dog? And where did he get the hair on his head? He’s been rampaging for a while now and who he’s really angry at is barry. As are a lot of people and it’s only 4 months in. Larry can yell at Pat Buchanan all he wants and Pat’ll laugh right back and say: See, it’s working or See, I told you so. Just like he did this video segment where even Matthews had to laugh at Larry.
Well, he came today to — obviously to do nothing much other than defend torture, which he calls ‘tough questioning.’ This was as sleazy a presentation by a vice president as we’ve had since Spiro Agnew. This was an absolute abomination. He cannot, ever, frame the other side’s position honestly.
Here’s the real anger. barry played nice and came off as rather neutered. Cheney has absolutely nothing to lose and from Larry’s reaction Cheney’s doing a bangup job.
Why is barry even engaging Cheney?
LARRY ODONNELL:
…What you saw with Obama earlier was Obama describes the other side’s position fairly. He then goes on to advance his position. Cheney comes out and lies about the other side, it’s the only way he can talk. He says that Obama will not use the word ‘terrorist,’ when Obama does indeed use that word. He pretends that all we did was tough questioning. He says that 9/11 — he says that 9/11 made everyone take a second look at the threat. That is a lie.
(3:25)This guy just has to lie from beginning to end through his setup of his opposition’s position in order to advance any of his ideas at all, none of which have any proof to them at all.
ANDREA MITCHELL (7:30) Seems to have the most rational understanding of the potential violence.
So here you’ve got the former vice president saying they worked, the current president saying, they — ‘you don’t need those techniques in order to keep America safe.’ And you can’t bring those two sides together. We are at a real impasse here and I’ve never seen the debate framed more divisively than we’ve heard it today.
CHRIS MATTHEWS (8:20)
Now the Vice President, the former Vice President, joined in the fight with those 90 senators, clearly exploiting it, saying today, just now, ‘Attorney General Holder and others have admitted that the United States will be required to accept a number of the terrorists here in the homeland,’ you got to love this language, ‘and it has even been suggested U.S. taxpayer dollars will be used to support them.’ As if we’re setting up some sort of happy hunting ground for these people. We’re putting them in prison and feeding them, and giving them pajamas. What is this ’supporting them’ about, Pat?
LARRY O’DONNELL (9:50):
Exactly. The President said very clearly he’s not going to release any terrorist — and he uses the word terrorist — who could endanger Americans. Now Chris, you’ve pointed out another very clear Dick Cheney lie. It is just a lie. Who is paying for the daily existence of the terrorists in Gitmo now? Who is paying for that? The American taxpayer. This is the kind of sleazy arguing that this guy does in these speeches. It is just ridiculous. It is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who’s listening to him.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
There was one clever thing, also, that he did do, was to challenge the President to declassify those memos, which he claims prove that he’s correct, that the techniques worked and kept us safer.
LARRY O’DONNELL:
But after objecting to the release of top-secret information. The Vice President objects to the release of top-secret information. In the next sentence, he advocates it.
PAT BUCHANAN:
Lawrence’s reaction tells you that Cheney’s speech worked.
Military commissions have a long tradition in the United States. They are appropriate for trying enemies who violate the laws of war, provided that they are properly structured and administered. In the past, I have supported the use of military commissions as one avenue to try detainees, in addition to prosecution in Article III courts. In 2006, I voted in favor of the use of military commissions. But I objected strongly to the Military Commissions Act that was drafted by the Bush Administration and passed by Congress because it failed to establish a legitimate legal framework and undermined our capability to ensure swift and certain justice against those detainees that we were holding at the time. Indeed, the system of Military Commissions at Guantanamo Bay had only succeeded in prosecuting three suspected terrorists in more than seven years.
Today, the Department of Defense will be seeking additional continuances in several pending military commission proceedings. We will seek more time to allow us time to reform the military commission process. The Secretary of Defense will notify the Congress of several changes to the rules governing the commissions.
The rule changes will ensure that:
First, statements that have been obtained from detainees using cruel, inhuman and degrading interrogation methods will no longer be admitted as evidence at trial.
Second, the use of hearsay will be limited, so that the burden will no longer be on the party who objects to hearsay to disprove its reliability.
Third, the accused will have greater latitude in selecting their counsel.
Fourth, basic protections will be provided for those who refuse to testify.
And fifth, military commission judges may establish the jurisdiction of their own courts.
These reforms will begin to restore the Commissions as a legitimate forum for prosecution, while bringing them in line with the rule of law. In addition, we will work with the Congress on additional reforms that will permit commissions to prosecute terrorists effectively and be an avenue, along with federal prosecutions in Article III courts, for administering justice. This is the best way to protect our country, while upholding our deeply held values.
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.
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.
This is what Amrit Singh, counsel in ACLU v. Dep’t of Defense lawsuit wrote in her March 8, 2009 Huffington Post entry as the primary supporting argument for why more torture photos should be released.
Can anyone find in her words the justification for putting American servicemembers’ lives at risk? Or find evidence that she ever even considered it?
SINGH: The public value of these images is considerable. As visual records, they convey what words could not possibly communicate. As evidence of abuse at locations other than Abu Ghraib, they undermine the Bush administration’s claim that abuse was aberrational. The disclosure of these images is critical to help the public understand the scope and scale of prisoner abuse as well as the extent to which such abuse was caused by policy decisions. Disclosure is also crucial for assessing official responsibility for the abuse.
This is a generic legal argument that has no personality or understanding of the propaganda nature of the photos and what their release would mean to actual human beings – American human beings in a time of war. She has variably said they are essential, important and considerable – all three very different. They are either necessary or not.
There is not a single word as to who would directly benefit from their release – just the nebulous “public” – the majority of whom said they do not want to see an investigation, even though they say what was done was torture and unacceptable. “The public” has thought it through and concluded that the consequences are unacceptable.
Undermining the previous Administration’s past claim is not worth the present and potential risk to American servicemen and women.
The disclosure of the images is not critical to anyone or anything – including the assessment of official responsibility. And present decisions are not dictated by policies that were in place when the photos were taken.
And here is why Ms Singh believes barry should do it. She, a lawyer, actually believes barry’s claim of transparency, despite the mounds of evidence to the contrary during his campaign and in his first 100 days.
SINGH: Indeed, withholding the prisoner abuse images would seriously undermine President Obama’s recent directives on government openness. One of those directives expressly prohibits the government from “keep[ing] information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears.”
She is equating the release of pure propaganda that would lead – with 100% certainty – to the torture and harm of Americans with “embarrassment” and “speculative or abstract fears”. Suit her up in a uniform and put her at the front of the line and then ask her if it is an “speculative” or “abstract” fear.
It seems Ms Singh doesn’t fully grasp that the US is at war and that what she is demanding would directly aid the enemy. Or that there is true meaning behind the phrase “in the interest of National security”, which in this case would be the security of the Nation’s citizens aka “the public”. Including the military, the innocents living their lives like those in the twin towers and Americans traveling abroad like those in Mumbai where any old American served their purpose.
Ms Singh correctly asserts that “Congress enacted FOIA precisely to ensure government accountability”. But she doesn’t prove the causality because none exists. The release of more photos is not going to affect in any way the previous Administration’s accountability. The first act of torture was wrong. Period. End of story. Releasing 1 or 1000 more photos is not going to make the first act any more or less heinous.
The Freedom of Information Act was meant to empower The American People.
In this case, the power would be placed directly in the hands of the enemy and no where in her argument does Ms Singh acknowledge this.
barry’s prepared comments concerning his reversal on the release of the torture photos. He never says the word torture. He refers to it as conduct that didn’t conform with the Army manual.
How much did Dick Cheney have to do with it? It being past 100 days? The Generals? Nancy Pelosi? Or simple reality? The kind of reality he will eventually arrive at with Guantanamo Bay.
Now, let me also say a few words about an issue that I know you asked Robert Gibbs about quite a bit today, and that’s my decision to argue against the release of additional detainee photos. Understand, these photos are associated with closed investigations of the alleged abuse of detainees in our ongoing war effort.
Operative words: war effort. Something folks seem to forget.
And I want to emphasize that these 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 they do represent conduct that did not conform with the Army Manual. That’s precisely why they were investigated — and, I might add, investigated long before I took office – and, where appropriate, sanctions have been applied.
That caveat is attached to every decision he makes. How long before it no longer applies.
In other words, this 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.
Meaning everything that is going to be done has been done. The photos, if released, will change nothing.
It’s therefore my 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. 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.
Honestly – why does that even need to be said out loud?
Moreover, I fear the publication of these photos may only have a chilling effect on future investigations of detainee abuse. And obviously the thing that is most important in my mind is making sure that we are abiding by the Army Manual and that we are swiftly investigating any instances in which individuals have not acted appropriately, and that they are appropriately sanctioned. That’s my aim and I do not believe that the release of these photos at this time would further that goal.
Those deeds are done. The photos are not going to change that. Any and all future instances will be dealt with start to finish.
Now, let me be clear: I am concerned about how the release of these photos would be — would impact on the safety of our troops. I have made it very clear to all who are within the chain of command, however, of the United States Armed Forces that the abuse of detainees in our custody is prohibited and will not be tolerated. I have repeated that since I’ve been in office, Secretary Gates understands that, Admiral Mullen understands that, and that has been communicated across the chain of command.
Any abuse of detainees is unacceptable. It is against our values. It endangers our security. It will not be tolerated.
All right. Thank you very much, everybody.
Did not take any questions.
For the first time ever I actually agree with barry. Believing he did it out of personal conviction is another matter.
Why, and for what purposes, do you need more photos released?
As an indictment of the Bush legacy? To inflame and already inflamed public? Or just to get your own 15 seconds?
We all know that torture took place. The entire world knows torture took place. The President came out and said it was torture and that it would not happen on his watch. And the already released memos, photos and videos are ample proof of what took place.
So why the need for more?
What is the ACLU really after?
Not the safety of American servicemembers or Americans traveling abroad or civilian contractors in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The photos you are demanding be released will be plastered all over the Muslim caves and hate factories as living color incentive to kill innocent Americans – any Americans – not just the torturers.
The Muslim savages do not kill selectively. They have made that abundantly clear with their acts to date. They made it clear on 9-11. They made it clear in Mumbai. And they make it clear each time they lie and goad their family members into blowing themselves for the sake of a “Holy War” of blind hate.
You want graphic pictures?
Then call the savages what they are: hate-filled human detonators who pray to Allah to help them kill as many innocent people as they can in the name of Islam. And make clear what they do: rape and “marry” little girls, poison them with gas, disfigure them with acid and sell them to settle a gambling debt or opium habit.
You want graphic photos?
How about photos of young Muslim girls’ mutilated genitals, sliced into and hacked off while they were awake and screaming to that very same Allah to make it stop.
You want graphic photos?
How about photos of raped little girls’ genital and anal regions taken the morning after the “consummation” of their Islam-sanctioned “marriage”.
That is the torture the world needs to see. The torture of innocent newborns, toddlers, precious little girls, teenagers and women. The torture of the mothers, grandmothers, wives, sisters and daughters sanctioned and perhaps already carried out by the adult men in those photos.
What are you doing to bring those torturers to justice?
You seek to release proof of their mistreatment and yet ignore the mistreatment they willingly and with forethought and malice inflict.
They chose to get involved. They chose their path to hate, fully aware of the consequences, including possible capture and torture. The women and children they torture have done nothing but be born. And the ACLU-provided propaganda will be used directly to further the photographed’s cause, which includes the continued torture and oppression of innocent women and children.
Are you okay with that?
If so, you need to document it.
If not, you need to drop your demands.
Torture – any torture – is wrong.
There are degrees of mental, psychological and physical torture, but it is all wrong.
The first act is wrong, as is the second, third and all thereafter.
So why the need for more inflammatory photos?
How do you think they will be used to “improve our standing in the world”?
How will they contribute to the safety of your own daughters?
What do you think will happen to the brave American volunteers who are putting their sanity, lives and limbs on the line to keep your daughters safe?
How do you plan on safeguarding their civil liberties, when the photos you are demanding have no inherent benefit and will serve only to incite more hate, which will be taken out on them?
Where is your own hate being directed?
What is it you really want?
There must be something because no rational American cognizant of the consequences of the photos’ release would demand what you are demanding. Consequences that cannot be denied.
You need to explain to The American People, in precise detail, the exact function you think those photos will play. Saying they will “provide visual proof” that the torture was more widespread than thought is not reason enough.
The men in the photographs have already been tortured. Sad, and wrong, but true. Circulating additional photos will not undo what was done to them or prevent what happened in the very last photo. But they will, WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, lead to more torture that you will have had a hand in.
You.
The ACLU.
Your own selfish demands will have lead directly to more torture – only this time it will be the torture of Americans. Americans who had nothing to do with what happened in those photos.
Is that your goal?
If not, you need to make clear to The American People – before the photos are released – why your needs take precedence over a single American servicemember’s safety.
You need to list the benefits of releasing those photos – before they are released – so that The American People can be perfectly clear of your motivation when they view the first “visual proof” beheading video of a non-torturing American.
And you need to document, in detail, the absolute necessity of those photos – before they are released – so that the orphans of Americans tortured and murdered as a result of your demands can take comfort in reading that justification when they bring wrongful death lawsuits against you.
Freedom of Information in this case comes with a very clear danger, which you need to document your understanding of, on paper, before the photos are released.
You need to document that you understand we are at war and that what you are demanding will be used as anti-American propaganda to directly further the efforts of our enemies.
And you need to articulate, on camera, that you understand the consequences of your demands and have deemed them secondary to your own motives.
These photographs provide visual proof that prisoner abuse by U.S. personnel was not aberrational but widespread, reaching far beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib.
Any sane reasoning human being knows that. There is no need for further proof. The threshold was met with one photo. The Bush Administration is gone and the present one has sworn not to torture. Providing further photographs to the world is not going to change the past and the future has already been decided upon.
Realize, that if you continue on with your demands, it will be you – the ACLU – not the torturers – who will have endangered our troops. That it will have been ACLU-demanded propaganda that caused harm to Americans who volunteered to protect the Constitution you abstractly quote.
If you continue, be prepared to meet with the parents of brave Americans, who will have been tortured, disfigured, beheaded and killed because of your demands.
If you continue, make sure you have the courage to look them in the eye and explain why you found it necessary to force the release of the very propaganda that led directly to their child’s death and/or torture.
And make sure you can prove, during the wrongful death lawsuits brought on their behalf, that you were acting in the interests of their children’s civil liberties and not those of the avowed terrorists and unrepentant murderers of innocent Americans.
The acts of torture have already been cruelly inflicted and documented. They are not going away. And the additional photos can be viewed by whatever agency needs to see them.
But the general public does not need to see them. And the hate-filled indiscriminate killers of non-torturing Americans most definitely do not need to see them.
Just so there is no lingering confusion:
What you are seeking has no legitimate purpose, which means the release of the photos is 100% unnecessary, since ample evidence of torture already exists and the President of the United States has already stated, publicly, on record, and to the entire world – Muslim and otherwise - that there will be no torture on his watch.
What you are seeking will lead, with 100% certainty, to the torture and murder of honorable American soldiers, who had nothing to do with torture of those men in the photographs.
That means you – the ACLU – will be 100% responsible for any and all violence directly resulting from the release of those photos.
What are the chances barry closes down Guantanamo Bay on day 1 like promised? What good is an executive order that never gets executed? Anyone think it will happen in his first term? And they sure better not be brought to the US and given rights afforded the people they have vowed (and have gone back) to kill. How many daily briefings is he going to need to figure it out?
OBAMA ADVISOR: There is always a risk of acquittal, and there is a risk some people who are released will return to the battlefield. There is no risk-free option.
(1-11-09) This Week. Stephanopoulos asks if barry will close it in the first 100 days?
OBAMA: That's a challenge. I think it's going to take some time and our legal teams are working in consultation with our national security apparatus as we speak to help design exactly what we need to do. But I don't want to be ambiguous about this. (??) We are going to close Guantanamo and we are going to make sure that the procedures we set up are ones that abide by our constitution.
61 of the 520 released detainees have returned to killing Americans. In March, 37. That's an increase from 7% - 11%.
How many innocent Americans can one suicide or car bomber kill? And all 61?
What about the ones who haven't died or been caught? The ones they have lost track of? It has to be much higher number than that. And then add in all the ones they will infect.
They should implant little GPS chips into them. Maybe an anti-detonation device. And then castrate them. Go ahead and sue me. There are a bunch of Yemeni savages who will go home and "marry" their 10 y/o cousins to create more hate and oppression.
Why such care and concern for human rights in a camp detaining criminals sworn to kill when there is none for the little girls whose souls they are killing every night?
How is waterboarding a vowing to continue to kill terrorist compare to the repeated raping of a 10 y/o child by a man 2-6 times her age?
Those cavemen choose their punishment - the little girls do not.
Holder's confirmation hearing. A third group of inmates, Holder indicated, can't be tried "for a variety of reasons" but also can't be released because they are too dangerous. For that reason, the Obama administration won't be able to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility "as soon as we'd like."
There's campaigning and there's governing. There's rhetoric and there's policy...Until Obama figures it all out, the grand pronouncements on Gitmo are just more political grandstanding.
(1-16-09) Washington Post: EU not yet asked to take Gitmo detainees
BARRY: I was clear throughout this campaign and through this transition that under my administration the United States does not torture. We will abide by the Geneva Conventions. That we will uphold our highest values and ideals. And that is a clear charge that I've given to AdmiralBlair and to Leon Panetta. And, I think it is important for us to do that, not only because that's who we are, but also will ultimately make us safer. And will help in changing hearts and minds in our struggle against extremists.
With respect to Iran. I will have more to say about Iran after January 20. I have said in the past, during the course of the campaign, that Iran is a genuine threat to US National Security. But I've also said that we should be willing to initiate diplomacy as a mechanism to achieve our national security goals.
And my national security team is reflective of that practical, pragmatic approach to foreign policy. And when we have a policy towards Iran that has been shaped by my national security team - we will release it.
He's already trying to pawn it off on his team even though he says the change will come from him. And note his use of "does not" not WILL NOT. He knows exactly what he is saying and is still trying to obamanate 11 days before he becomes president. It is going to be a very rude awakening...for him, The American People and the world.
Watch his previous stumps on Iran. One day it's a tiny country that doesn't pose a serious threat and the next day it's a grave threat. What do you think he'll settle on come Jan 21st? Here's a fewmore of his favorite poll-directed, politically expedient stances.
May 18, 2008: Iran, Cuba and Venezuela- these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us. May 19, 2008: Let me be absolutely clear: Iran is a grave threat. May 20, 2008: This obsession with Ahmadinejad is an example of us losing track of what's important.
