Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Krusty · Jul 24, 2005, 11:25 AM

Well, in our typical short-attention-span news culture these days, we seem to have forgotten that there were supposed to be quite a few more pictures and videos of the Abu Ghraib incidents that were ordered to be released by a Federal Court under a Freedom of Information Act suit.

The brief recap:
1) Pictures and videos requested by ACLU under FOIA over a year ago.

2) Pentagon simply ignores the request for several months, then refuses the request on the grounds that it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions to release humiliating pictures enemy detainees because the detainees in the pictures were personally identifiable ... which is a joke not only because any personally identifiable features (faces, tattoos, etc) can be redacted as they were in the ones we have already seen, but also because of the hypocrisy of hiding behind the GC which they pretty much toss it aside when they feel like it (e.g. creating and "enemy combatant" status worldwide -- including inside the US and for US citizens -- to which the GC doesn't apply).

3) ACLU wins a decision in Federal Court at the end of May of this year which gives the government several weeks from June 1st, 2005 to redact the media and then release it to the public.

Now, the day before the scheduled release, the US gov declares that the pictures "could result in harm to individuals" but will not publicly say why, proposing instead to issue a sealed memorandum to the Federal Court that made the original decision.

Here's the ACLU's press release on the the topic and Here and Here are links to brief editorials in a less-than-mainstream news outlet. Sorry I couldn't link to a mainstream news site, our crack team of "liberal news media™ " have once again simply turned their collective heads when the government feels like sweeping a story under the rug.

Why would the government continue stonewalling on this other than to hide evidence that would show involvement by more people than it has prosecuted already OR show acts that has not formerly acknowledged occurred ? In other words .. show that they been sitting on evidence of crimes that they haven't bothered prosecuting.

This is just ridiculous. It's not a "leak scandal" nor some sort of anti-government subversion. Its the US Department of Defense apparently deciding that it is not legally bound by Federal Court rulings and, hence, above the Law that you and I have to follow.

Y3a · Jul 24, 2005, 04:46 PM

<< The brief recap: >>

Don't you mean Briefs AS A Cap?

WHO cares about the ACLU anyway? Political leftists and even WORSE...LAWYERS!

BTW- The Military IS NOT BOUND by many of those laws.

I wanna know why the prisoneers aren't taken to Saudi Arabia for more "Questioning"

If it's WE DIE or THEY DIE It should be THEM.
Innocent folks being killed because of some liberal interpretation of the laws is a bad idea.

We did NOT sign a Geneva Convention agreement with the islamic terrorists in the first place.
It should be a kind of warning to the terrorists what could happen to them. DUH!

Krusty · 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by Y3a

<< The brief recap: >>
WHO cares about the ACLU anyway? Political leftists and even WORSE...LAWYERS!

The fact that the ACLU is one of the groups requesting the info isn't the big deal here. Its that a Federal Judge ordered that the media be redacted and released. If the ACLU had asked for the photos and and Federal Judge denied their request, there would not be an issue here (well, there would be, but it'd be a different issue).

Originally Posted by Y3a

BTW- The Military IS NOT BOUND by many of those laws.

The military and US government IS bound by rulings of Federal Judges. This isn't something that has a black and white law on the books somewhere, its something on which a ruling was made. Yes, they have to comply with this ruling.

Originally Posted by Y3a

If it's WE DIE or THEY DIE It should be THEM.

Sure, on the battlefield. Incarcerated detainees (many women and children), 70-90% of which are estimated to be innocent of anything, who are clearly unarmed, locked up, and under our control are NOT in a position to raise the WE DIE/THEY DIE issue. You saw the earlier photos, the quasi-sexual sadistic behavior of the US troops involved was not a response to a life and limb threat to them. It was pure brutality. EVERYONE (even on the Right and in the Bush admin) have admitted as much ... the only question at this point is whether or not it was a "few bad apples" or went higher up the food chain. The act of refusing to release the media as ordered casts a pretty large shadow of doubt that there may be something in there that implies the latter rather than the former ... otherwise, why would they bother suppressing it in the first place ? Why not have it all out last year when the first pics came to light .... it'd all be water under the bridge by this point.

Originally Posted by Y3a

We did NOT sign a Geneva Convention agreement with the islamic terrorists in the first place.

Then the DoD's cop-out based on GC is hogwash too. If we're not adhering to GC with these people, then protecting their rights under it is a null and void argument (and is, in fact, EXACTLY the argument being used by the Govt's lawyers).

I'm actually looking at my keyboard questioning whether or not to hit "submit" wondering if responding to your joke of a post is even worth it. Oh well, I've already typed a response, so I may as well .....

[edit]
Here is a swell idea presented by Republican John McCain that obsolesces any questions about the Geneva Convention. How 'bout just follow the Army's own Field Manual with regards to the treatment of all detainees regardless of status. ??
[/edit]

Y3a · Jul 24, 2005, 08:21 PM

<< Republican John McCain >>

Another Oxymoron??

Y3a · Jul 24, 2005, 08:23 PM

Is the ACLU going to court for those Americans who were beheaded??

Krusty · Jul 24, 2005, 08:39 PM

Originally Posted by Y3a

Is the ACLU going to court for those Americans who were beheaded??

If there were a court to take that case to, I'm sure they would. The American Civil Liberties Union doesn't really have a lot of options for legal recourse with Iraqi insurgents. They don't have a Freedom of Information Act nor a Federal courts system as far as I can tell. See, that's the supposedly what makes us "different" from them. Also remember that the detainees at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo are just suspects ... none have been tried or convicted of anything at this point. If someone had proven that the suspects tortured at Abu Ghraib were in fact part of a group that beheaded Americans, that evidence would have doubtless been presented. Besides, the Nick Berg's of the world, as innocent as they may be actually chose to go to Iraq with full knowledge of the dangers ... he was not a soldier nor was he like most of the Iraqis in detention at Abu Ghraib (which is to say, just a normal person who happened to be living in the wrong place when somebody with guns decided to pick them up).

HawgJawl · Jul 24, 2005, 09:24 PM

Originally Posted by Y3a

<< Republican John McCain >>

Another Oxymoron??

Yeah it is considering he is a shill for the Democrats.

<Horse> Look at my spots! I am a leopard !

Krusty · Jul 24, 2005, 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by HawgJawl

Yeah it is considering he is a shill for the Democrats.

<Horse> Look at my spots! I am a leopard !

Look at McCain's voting record. He is Republican through and through. He just (refreshingly) doesn't tow the party line when its inappropriate to do so. The Democratic Party has a corollary
figure in Zell Miller.

Check the linked article, McCain has the backing of several retired military brass as well ... who also don't want to see the reputation of the US military tarnished. Standing up and doing the right thing with regards to brutalities committed is the most honorable and forgivable thing the US military can do. Trying to cover up and suppress what happened will leave them looking like the moral equivalents of the insurgents they are fighting (which is to say, BAD).

HawgJawl · Jul 24, 2005, 09:36 PM

He was a Repub voter for some years. But his latest aspirations have been for the Democrats

I think he believes he could get more admiration and treated better and put on a higher pedestal that the Repubs did for him.

So while he MAY have been a Repub at one time, Calling him one now is laughable.

He tried to play off the "I am a righty against Bush" till it came back to smack him on the face, and everyone pretty much forgot about him.

dcmacdaddy · Jul 24, 2005, 10:13 PM

Originally Posted by HawgJawl

He was a Repub voter for some years. But his latest aspirations have been for the Democrats

I think he believes he could get more admiration and treated better and put on a higher pedestal that the Repubs did for him.

So while he MAY have been a Repub at one time, Calling him one now is laughable.

He tried to play off the "I am a righty against Bush" till it came back to smack him on the face, and everyone pretty much forgot about him.

So, if a Republican doesn't whole-heartedly support Bush they can't be called a Republican?

Please?!?

The man has a mind and thinks for himself. If you want other Republicans who don't always tow the party line look at Senator John Warner from Virginia. He has frequently opposed the Bush administration on many major issues, especially relating to the military--He opposed the Bush Administration's attempts to cut veteran's benefits before the political uproar caused the Bush Administration to quickly change course and re-instate the planned cut in benefits. So, does he not count as a"true" Republican?

placebo1969 · Jul 25, 2005, 12:32 AM

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

So, if a Republican doesn't whole-heartedly support Bush they can't be called a Republican?

Please?!?

The man has a mind and thinks for himself. If you want other Republicans who don't always tow the party line look at Senator John Warner from Virginia. He has frequently opposed the Bush administration on many major issues, especially relating to the military--He opposed the Bush Administration's attempts to cut veteran's benefits before the political uproar caused the Bush Administration to quickly change course and re-instate the planned cut in benefits. So, does he not count as a"true" Republican?

To be fair, I've heard people say the same thing about Zell Miller. Just replace Republican with Democrat.

chabig · Jul 25, 2005, 04:53 AM

Originally Posted by Krusty

Besides, the Nick Berg's of the world, as innocent as they may be actually chose to go to Iraq with full knowledge of the dangers

So you're saying "blame the victim"?

HawgJawl · Jul 25, 2005, 05:41 AM

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

So, if a Republican doesn't whole-heartedly support Bush they can't be called a Republican?

Please?!?

You didn't read my post did you? He didn't just not agree with Bush. He was siding for the Dems before Bush came along.

I believe he is looking for a political in. And will take which ever side will get him that.

Hence the leftist shill.

Y3a · Jul 25, 2005, 07:49 AM

The ACLU DEFENDS TERRORISTS! So, WHO'S SIDE are they on? Ours?

What do they suggest as a better way to get info and protect American lives? They HAVE NO CLUE.

☺ · Jul 25, 2005, 07:51 AM

The ACLU lives in a fairy tale.

So do must extreme leftist thinkers.

Y3a · Jul 25, 2005, 07:52 AM

Fact is the liberals in the US don't have the guts to do whats required to protect us in the 21st Century. They would rather whine and whish everything could be like they invision is 'should' be (Fooling themselves and unable to see the real world as it is) Idealistic to the last.

dcmacdaddy · Jul 25, 2005, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by Y3a

Fact is the liberals in the US don't have the guts to do whats required to protect us in the 21st Century. They would rather whine and whish everything could be like they invision is 'should' be (Fooling themselves and unable to see the real world as it is) Idealistic to the last.

Tell me what you think IS "required to protect us in the 21st century" vis a vis the use of torture and detainee camps like Camp X-Ray at Gitmo.

Ji Eun · Jul 25, 2005, 12:24 PM

the only thing that will make the US safe from 9/11 / madrid / london type attacks is a profound redrawing of its middle-east policy..... which is just not in the cards. the patriot act(s) and random bag searches are just the start, kids. as for the topic, this additional abu ghraib evidence (rape, sodomy, murder, etc.) will not see the light of day for a very very long time. no wonder the US refused to sign on to the int'l criminal court.

Y3a · Jul 25, 2005, 12:49 PM

The International Criminal Court doesn't even clean up it's own corruption. Either does the highly corrupt UN. As long as nations like Cuba get to be in charge of the Human Right commission it's just a JOKE. Perhaps the better way is to assinate the corrupt world leaders, and those like the leaders of Sudan etc. take out the Saudi Royal family, the leaders of Iran, Syria, several African nations, that extreme fool in North Korea, etc, etc, etc.

TETENAL · Jul 25, 2005, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by Y3a

Perhaps the better way is to assinate the corrupt world leaders, and those like the leaders of Sudan etc. take out the Saudi Royal family, the leaders of Iran, Syria, several African nations, that extreme fool in North Korea, etc, etc, etc.

I think you have been "ass"inated a long time ago.

Y3a · Jul 25, 2005, 01:38 PM

So, instead of Killing them we should like talk to them. give 'em everything and bow in their presence?

altocumulus · Jul 25, 2005, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by Y3a

So, instead of Killing them we should like talk to them. give 'em everything and bow in their presence?

good binary logic

the UN may be corrupt, i don't know enough about the ICC to say whether it would work or not. then who do you think should clean up the US?

maybe the US should take a stand, a moral stand, and do something about it themselves. you know, be the better country, act like a true christian/muslim/jew would act.

US policy needs to take a good look at itself in the mirror.

loki74 · Jul 25, 2005, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by Y3a

Is the ACLU going to court for those Americans who were beheaded??

lol thats FUNNY! The ACLU go to court for beheaded Americans? That would actually be something admirable and honorable. Not something the ACLU is in the buiness of doing. (They're to busy trying to erase Christianity from American History)

Originally Posted by Krusty

in our typical short-attention-span news culture these days, we seem to have forgotten

Yeah you know why? Because Abu Ghraib doesn't matter. Frankly I could not care less if I tried. But you're right. We do have a short attention span. We seem to forget who the enemy is here: terrorists, and those who support them. Remember that thing, that happened a few years ago, when those planes crashed into those towers? We call it something like 9/11 these days? Abu Ghraib is meaningless. The individuals who did those things are facing the consequences, so why are we talking about it, other than to just bash more on the US? Thats all it is anymore--just another way for anti-Americans to breed anti-American sentiment.

Macrobat · Jul 25, 2005, 02:53 PM

Not to mention the FACT that jhe perpetrators of any wrong-doing have been prosecuted (despite any conspiracy theories the Left may float to the contrary) and any desire to see further photos from Abu Ghraib is just morbid curiosity on the part of those doing all the b1tching.

No great violation of rightgs, etc. It's the same crowd that keeps carping about there being no pictures of flag-draped coffins released. They have no real positive agendas to put forward, so they continue to try and make political hay on the negative.

Plain and simple.

MacIntel · Jul 27, 2005, 05:41 PM

Ummm... we got it. Underwear on people's heads. Weird chicks with leashes, naked butt pyramids, that kinna stuff.

Relax, maybe someone will set up www.down-n-dirty.abu-ghriab.com then for those that need to see more of that stuff. $5 a month gets you all-you-can watch, unlimited access! Hey, whatever floats your boat I guess.

Ji Eun · Jul 28, 2005, 02:30 PM

according to those who've seen everything (US senators and rumsfeld on record for starters) the unreleased stuff makes the released stuff look like summer camp in the catskills.

that is: pictures and/or video of hetero/homosexual rape, forced sex between prisoners... a prisoner being sodomized with a glo-stick!?!?!?!

yeah... it's really "no great violation of rights..."
just "underwear on people's heads..."
yeah, everyone should just "relax"

yeah, it's all good

Macrobat · Jul 28, 2005, 02:45 PM

And, your seeing the pictures changes the FACT that the perpetrators have been punished how?

Admit it, you're the same sort who wants to see those paparazzi pix of Princess Diana laying in her wrecked Mercedes.

MacIntel · Jul 28, 2005, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by Macrobat

And, your seeing the pictures changes the FACT that the perpetrators have been punished how?

Admit it, you're the same sort who wants to see those paparazzi pix of Princess Diana laying in her wrecked Mercedes.

Ji Eun · Jul 28, 2005, 03:05 PM

um, no.... i never said i want or need to see anything. don't put words in people's mouths.
the unreleased pictures reportedly show soldiers who were not pictured in the first batch comitting additional crimes, therefore no, not all of the "perpetrators have been punished..." and until all of the evidence becomes public record, as has been ordered by the US courts, the controversy surrounding this evidence will continue to fester and people such as yourselves can continue to hear no evil see no evil speak no evil till the cows come home.

RAILhead · Jul 28, 2005, 03:54 PM

Krusty · Jul 28, 2005, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by Macrobat

And, your seeing the pictures changes the FACT that the perpetrators have been punished how?

Admit it, you're the same sort who wants to see those paparazzi pix of Princess Diana laying in her wrecked Mercedes.

You've got to be kidding. The purpose behind the release of the additional media isn't sick voyeurism. Its to have the truth about what happened. If the photos and videos substantially corroborate what our government has told us about what happened and who did it, then it can exonerate them as well. The actions of the Dept. of Defense would seem to imply that they have something to hide in this regard ... like that there were people involved who weren't prosecuted and actions that occurred that have been swept under the rug for 2 years.

Heck, I'd be happy if the new photos/videos were just more of the same and involved only the same people who have been prosecuted already. But we both know that this is probably not the case or the DoD wouldn't be tap-dancing this issue so fervently (unless you have an alternate hypothesis). I don't know yet if I even want to actually see this stuff with my own eyes .... but it IS a matter of public record that has been cleared for release by the Federal Courts.

loki74 · Jul 28, 2005, 08:53 PM

Originally Posted by Ji Eun

pictures and/or video of hetero/homosexual rape, forced sex between prisoners... a prisoner being sodomized with a glo-stick!?!?!?!

if that's whats really in those pics, that would be a good resason you havent seen themon the news! Umm, duh? FCC anyone? Released or not, you won't see them on tv. That means you're going to go to the net. You really want to *see* the truth that much? Just *knowing* the truth is well enough for me.

goMac · Jul 29, 2005, 03:55 AM

Originally Posted by loki74

if that's whats really in those pics, that would be a good resason you havent seen themon the news! Umm, duh? FCC anyone? Released or not, you won't see them on tv. That means you're going to go to the net. You really want to *see* the truth that much? Just *knowing* the truth is well enough for me.

See... there is this little thing called proof. The right wing likes to see it when the left wing accuses them of things. Pictures of this happening usually go under the category of this "proof" thing. That way the right wing won't just simply accuse the left wing of talking out of their asses, or they still will and will look really silly because there will be photographs of it.

See how that works? Media has nothing to do with it.