Obama Opposes Releasing Photos of U.S. Detainee Abuse

[oreo]

Nah, either some poll they looked at said his original decision was "bad" OR he found out something that would slap him in the face later down the road. He didn't do it for the "troops". If that were true the democrats wouldn't have been undermining them for the last several years.

Yes, because even what you admit was the right decision couldn't possibly be done for the right reasons, because that would force you to admit that maybe Obama isn't the antichrist come to rule us for seven years.

Can you people please get a grip?

Sure. Which would be why he didn't care about the impact on the troops when he originally decided to declassify them in the first place. Now all of a sudden I'm supposed to believe he has honorable intentions? Not hardly.

Alot of political anaylists are saying that this flip-flop from Obama is because PUBLIC opinion went against him on the enhanced interrogation technics---making him look extremely weak on terrorism.-& "not his claim of safety for the troops."

To note--one of those hand held push button polls was done on a group of Obama voters a couple of weeks ago. As soon as Obama started talking about waterboarding & his "moral" clarity--his approval during this segment dropped off of a cliff. IOW--Obama voters did not like the idea of not being able to agressively interrogate terrorist suspects.

 

[Amanda]

I'm now officially an Obama hater!

I guess according to the Obama ball washers, all it takes to be a hater is to disagree with him once.

That's kinda how it works with the Left. Don't embrace with open arms you're a hater. It's pretty harsh, but it must work for them. Whatever.

 

[Amanda]

Word of Obama's decision on Wednesday came after top military commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan expressed fears that publicizing the pictures could put their troops in danger. When the Abu Ghraib photos emerged in 2004 of grinning U.S. soldiers posing with detainees, some naked, some being held on leashes, they caused a huge anti-American backlash around the globe, particularly in the Muslim world.


Obama decided he did not feel comfortable with the photos release, and was concerned it would inflame tensions in Iraq and Afghanistan, put U.S. soldiers at higher risk and make the U.S. mission in those two wars more difficult, according to White House officials.

Obama seeks to block release of abuse photos | TPM News Pages

I think that's good news!

And if Bush had done the same thing? Wouldn't the left be saying he was hiding something? I remember they went apeshit when he didn't want coffins photographed.

 

[Carole]

President Obama has announced his decision to block the release of alleged "detainee abuse" photos. Last month he said he would not fight a court order to release them. That court order was the result of an ACLU lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act and, needless to say, the ACLU is not happy with the President's decision. Um, his un-decision. Re-decision?

According to a statement by Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU, "The Obama administration's adoption of the stonewalling tactics and opaque policies of the Bush administration flies in the face of the president's stated desire to restore the rule of law, to revive our moral standing in the world and to lead a transparent government."

Perhaps the ACLU should go share some tea and sympathy with autoworkers at Chrysler's engine manufacturing plant in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Also in the news today: 800 workers will be affected when Chrysler's taxpayer funded restructuring plans go into effect. The plans call for the closing of the Kenosha plant in favor of a facility in Mexico. Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) along with other lawmakers signed a letter urging the Obama administration to reconsider the plan. "The taxpayer dollars that are propping the industry up should be used to preserve family-supporting jobs in Wisconsin and around the country,” said Feingold.

Almost half of voting Americans accepted in November that our candidate lost the election and therefore our preferred agenda for the country would not be furthered. We'll regroup and try again in 2010. But what about those who thought they won? They honestly believed that President Obama would bring transparency to government, save American jobs, change the tone in Washington for the better, end the recession, pay off everyone's mortgage and basically solve all our problems in his first few months in office.

Now that those first few months have passed maybe the Autoworkers, the ACLU and anyone else who's starting to feel like they didn't get what they voted for should get together and form a support group. How long will it be until some self-help author makes a fortune penning the best seller "When Good Voters Elect Bad Presidents"?

Somehow Candidate Obama convinced a large amount of people that President Obama would be able to keep promises that are too expensive or too dangerous to keep. Was he as naive as those who voted for him or did he know he was making empty promises all along? I doubt we'll ever know for sure.

 

[jreeves]

Word of Obama's decision on Wednesday came after top military commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan expressed fears that publicizing the pictures could put their troops in danger. When the Abu Ghraib photos emerged in 2004 of grinning U.S. soldiers posing with detainees, some naked, some being held on leashes, they caused a huge anti-American backlash around the globe, particularly in the Muslim world.


Obama decided he did not feel comfortable with the photos release, and was concerned it would inflame tensions in Iraq and Afghanistan, put U.S. soldiers at higher risk and make the U.S. mission in those two wars more difficult, according to White House officials.

Obama seeks to block release of abuse photos | TPM News Pages

Even if Obama released the CIA's playbook to the terrorist.

 

[Valerie]

Obama seeks to block release of abuse photos | TPM News Pages

I think that's good news!

And if Bush had done the same thing? Wouldn't the left be saying he was hiding something? I remember they went apeshit when he didn't want coffins photographed.

Amanda, thank you for illustrating my point. If Americans can't even see past partisan politics, why should we assume the terrorists could draw a distinction?

President Bush defended the policies and did not release the memos. President Obama denounced and discontinued the policies and released the memos. I say, that's enough already, right now we don't need to add insult to injury and make things worse for those who are in harms way.

 

[Amanda]

I think that's good news!

And if Bush had done the same thing? Wouldn't the left be saying he was hiding something? I remember they went apeshit when he didn't want coffins photographed.

Amanda, thank you for illustrating my point. If Americans can't even see past partisan politics, why should we assume the terrorists could draw a distinction?

President Bush defended the policies and did not release the memos. President Obama denounced and discontinued the policies and released the memos. I say, that's enough already, right now we don't need to add insult to injury and make things worse for those who are in harms way.

What point was illustrated?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

ONCE MORE for the slow , stupid and RETARDED. The photos are all from before 2005, all the photos involved some kind of criminal activity by individuals in the military, NONE OF THEM have anything to do with authorized interrogation techniques. ALL THE CASES have been dealt with and the guilty punished to what ever level the military felt appropriate.

 

[Terry]

Hate to say it but I don't trust Obama's words for he says one thing but has done another. My bet is these pictures leaks out.

 

[Ravi]

So basically, torture and mistreatment doesn't keep us safe an it doesn't keep the troops safe.

Morons.

 

[DiveCon]

So basically, torture and mistreatment doesn't keep us safe an it doesn't keep the troops safe.

Morons.

no, moron, these photos were of the abuses not interogation
and no one was tortured

well, except for those that read your posts

 

[Yurt]

So basically, torture and mistreatment doesn't keep us safe an it doesn't keep the troops safe.

Morons.

i don't understand how torture and mistreatment doesn't keep us safe

 

[Nik]

So basically, torture and mistreatment doesn't keep us safe an it doesn't keep the troops safe.

Morons.

i don't understand how torture and mistreatment doesn't keep us safe

Well if it did, then it wouldn't matter if we released the photos. But no...photos of abuse are evil and terrible and will make everyone hate us...but torturing people with state sanctioned approval? Pssh, that just won't have an effect.

 

[Nik]

So basically, torture and mistreatment doesn't keep us safe an it doesn't keep the troops safe.

Morons.

no, moron, these photos were of the abuses not interogation
and no one was tortured

well, except for those that read your posts

Well I really know that fine distinction will really be obvious when AQ is using them as propaganda purposes. Why don't you go out and and try to educate people that when the US government tortured people it was A OK, and was sanctioned so that made it ok, but the pictures aren't from that, the people in the pictures were prosecuted and how their higher ups who allowed that kind of shit to go on were also.....wait, might not want to include that last part.

 

[DiveCon]

So basically, torture and mistreatment doesn't keep us safe an it doesn't keep the troops safe.

Morons.

no, moron, these photos were of the abuses not interogation
and no one was tortured

well, except for those that read your posts

Well I really know that fine distinction will really be obvious when AQ is using them as propaganda purposes. Why don't you go out and and try to educate people that when the US government tortured people it was A OK, and was sanctioned so that made it ok, but the pictures aren't from that, the people in the pictures were prosecuted and how their higher ups who allowed that kind of shit to go on were also.....wait, might not want to include that last part.

who gives a shit what Al Qaeda twists
they will do it ANYWAY, moron


btw, moron, what they did was NOT sanctioned by higher ups
thats just more proof of what a fucking idiot you are
stop reading the dailykos, DU, and puffington post

 

[Nik]

no, moron, these photos were of the abuses not interogation
and no one was tortured

Actually people who undergo it, generally say its torture. But you, never having done it, are fully qualified to say what it is, right? No, sorry, its just you and your kind trying to justify abusing people.

Well I really know that fine distinction will really be obvious when AQ is using them as propaganda purposes. Why don't you go out and and try to educate people that when the US government tortured people it was A OK, and was sanctioned so that made it ok, but the pictures aren't from that, the people in the pictures were prosecuted and how their higher ups who allowed that kind of shit to go on were also.....wait, might not want to include that last part.

who gives a shit what Al Qaeda twists
they will do it ANYWAY, moron

Umm, they can't twist something that doesn't exist.

btw, moron, what they did was NOT sanctioned by higher ups
thats just more proof of what a fucking idiot you are
stop reading the dailykos, DU, and puffington post

Right. The higher ups were really concerned about what was torture and about keeping people in line. By the way, did you know that according to the Bybee memo, much of what happened at Abu Ghraib (and perhaps all of it) wasn't torture? So if the higher ups didn't sanction such abuse, why exactly did they define torture to exclude such brutalities like needles under the fingernails, or extremely physical pain?

 

[DiveCon]

Actually people who undergo it, generally say its torture. But you, never having done it, are fully qualified to say what it is, right? No, sorry, its just you and your kind trying to justify abusing people.


who gives a shit what Al Qaeda twists
they will do it ANYWAY, moron

Umm, they can't twist something that doesn't exist.

btw, moron, what they did was NOT sanctioned by higher ups
thats just more proof of what a fucking idiot you are
stop reading the dailykos, DU, and puffington post

Right. The higher ups were really concerned about what was torture and about keeping people in line. By the way, did you know that according to the Bybee memo, much of what happened at Abu Ghraib (and perhaps all of it) wasn't torture? So if the higher ups didn't sanction such abuse, why exactly did they define torture to exclude such brutalities like needles under the fingernails, or extremely physical pain?

really?
they couldnt twist gitmo into something it isn't
you assholes already do that
so either you are a fucking moron or a complete liar

 

[Nik]

Umm, they can't twist something that doesn't exist.

Right. The higher ups were really concerned about what was torture and about keeping people in line. By the way, did you know that according to the Bybee memo, much of what happened at Abu Ghraib (and perhaps all of it) wasn't torture? So if the higher ups didn't sanction such abuse, why exactly did they define torture to exclude such brutalities like needles under the fingernails, or extremely physical pain?

really?
they couldnt twist gitmo into something it isn't
you assholes already do that
so either you are a fucking moron or a complete liar

Umm, what the fuck? Try to be a little bit nonsensical in the future. I'm going to try to respond to each point you made, but if I misunderstand you, since you can't seem to write clearly, don't blame me.

"Really?". Yes, dipshit. Really. I wouldn't have said it if it wasn't really. Want me to copy and paste it again for your elucidation?

"They couldn't twist gitmo into something it isn't". Actually, yes they can. And they did. Whatever weird claims you want to believe about the left lying about GITMO, AQ said GITMO was much, much worse than it was. It was merely torture and inhumane, but it wasn't torture on the same scale as Nazism or something.

"You assholes are already do that". Umm, no. Provide evidence, or shut the fuck up.

"so either you are a fucking moron or a complete liar" Right. I'm a fucking moron of a complete liar because of the really intelligent argument where you said "really". Or maybe it was that brilliant statement where you referenced "you assholes". Naah, it was all the sentences as a whole that combined seem to spew out of your mouth with all the grace and poetic beauty of a child with diarrhea.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Just saw on the news a bit ago that Cheney's request for full release of interrogation memos was denied. Can't help but wonder the why on this, like maybe those memos hold substantial proof that EIT works. And Barry says he's going to have transparency Only when it suits him.

CIA Won't Release Memos Sought By Cheney : NPR

 

[Valerie]

[N]ow a new batch of photographs, perhaps hundreds of images, of prisoners being abused is about to be made public. It comes at a time when the debate over prisoner mistreatment is still roiling America's political and public conscience. The new photographs are being made public in a victory for the American Civil Liberties Union. And the Pentagon, after fighting, and losing, three federal court reviews of the matter, has waved the white flag and is now preparing to release the pictures. Some of the photographs are official; some, like the original Abu Ghraib collection, taken informally by soldiers. "We know this could make things tougher for our troops," a senior Pentagon official says, "but the court decisions really don't leave us with any other option."

Fox's Shepard Smith and Catherine Herridge presented the Fox version of this story yesterday, reporting that May 28 is the date set for the release of at least some of the photos. Herridge says that someone who's seen them told her none of them are as bad as the Abu Ghraib shots, but about 44 of them could be very ugly indeed.

And there's this note:

Smith: Some of the critics are really labeling this 'Abu Ghraib Part II.'

Herridge: Well, you remember that after Abu Ghraib there was worldwide condemnation for these images of humiliation. And I learned in my research today that there was also a military report in 2008 that concluded that there is a connection between these images and also suicide bombers. Forty-eight bombers, or potential bombers, were interviewed, and they said that these images were a big factor, a big motivating factor, in the decision to become a suicide bomber.

This in fact comports with that 2006 National Intelligence Estimate [PDF file] that found that Bush's war in Iraq had actually created the conditions for a future ripe with terrorist attacks; or, as the New York Times put it, "helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism." Among the real motivators for terrorist recruitment, it found, was the torture regime the Bush administration set up in places like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

If anyone thought that photos from those centers would not eventually leak out to the public -- or at the bare minimum, be forced out eventually by the inevitable lawsuits, as was the case here -- they were fooling themselves. Or at least gambling that they'd be out of office by then and could lay the whole mess in the laps of whoever had the misfortune to succeed them.

Indeed, the Obama critics are now out in force shouting that the pending release of these photos will hurt soldiers in the field, including Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham. Bill Kristol is claiming that "this would be a gratuitous assault on the well-being and the reputation of our fighting men and women."

But of course, they can't answer the cold fact that these photos are a product of the Bush administration's misbegotten policies, and the reaction to them from the Arab world -- indeed, the rest of the world -- puts the lie to Dick Cheney's claim that "enhanced interrogations" kept us safe.

In fact, over the long run, they have made us quantifiably less safe. And cleaning out this festering wound once and for all is the only hope we have of healing it.

Herridge's story has an on-point quote from the ACLU, which sued to get these photos released:

"The people in the pictures are guilty, but it does not stop and it is dangerous for us to assume that this is just a few bad apples," said Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney with the group. "This was at the highest levels of the U.S. government, a policy of state-approved torture that the U.S. committed and carried out throughout the Bush administration."

Incidentally, Robert Gibbs was asked about it by Fox News' Major Garrett yesterday:

Q Robert, Senators Graham and Lieberman have written the President a letter about pending release of the photographs of the treatment of detainees, and they would like the President to consider reversing that decision made by the Justice Department and the Department of Defense. And in their letter, they say the release of these old photographs of past behavior --

MR. GIBBS: Well, let me -- the decision made by the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice relating to a series of court cases dating back to September of 2008, as well as an appeals case dating back to March 11.

Go ahead.

Q That's the legal foundation, yes. And in their letter, they say this will "serve no public good" -- I'm quoting now -- "but will empower al Qaeda propaganda operations, hurt our country's image, and endanger our men and women in uniform." Is this something that is being considered by the President for reversal or is this a policy that will go forward? And does he have any anxiety about the potential consequences of the release of these photographs?

MR. GIBBS: Well, obviously the President has great concern about any impact that pictures of detainee -- potential detainee abuse in the past could have on the present-day service members that are protecting our freedom either in Iraq, Afghanistan, or throughout the world. That's something the President is very cognizant of, and we are working to -- we are working currently to figure out what the process is moving forward.

Q Does this mean -- does that mean the decision could be reversed?

MR. GIBBS: I don't want to get into that right now.

Q So you can't commit either way?

MR. GIBBS: I'm not going to add much to that right now.

We'll see what that means in the days to come, no doubt.

Detainee-abuse photos about to be released, Fox's Smith and Herridge report | Crooks and Liars