Blocked Detainee Photos Surface Anyways [Archive]

Dorothy Wood

05-15-2009, 02:25 PM

b i o n i c

05-15-2009, 02:36 PM

from what ive seen, the 'torture' cant be worse than shooting

b i o n i c

05-15-2009, 02:51 PM

i take that back, a slow death vs. a quick one

kaiser soze

05-15-2009, 02:55 PM

I think the whole photo thing is a visual affirmation of what has or is happening

We know they are using torture (excuse me....using advanced interrogation methods) and quite possibly it has worked but there is also knowledge that many individuals being held are presumably innocent and are being held illegally and are exposed to or worse subjected to these horrible tactics.

I wonder why there isn't much talk of the sodomizing and abuse of teenagers or children. Beyond the evil we have seen it is downright fucking filthy as shit and the fuckers who are doing it deserve to be prosecuted.

The U.S. doesn't torture my ass.....we've seen enough pictures, start prosecuting the fuckers who ordered it.

Dorothy Wood

05-15-2009, 02:59 PM

torturing prisoners is stupid anyway. it's proven that torture mainly incites false confessions. it's when people are treated well that they provide real information.

DroppinScience

05-15-2009, 05:27 PM

what's the point of looking at pictures like that? that's a serious question.

what does it accomplish to see pictures from 3 years ago? is that happening now? we all know what kind of bullshit went down at abu ghraib. why look at more pictures of it?

I want to know what people are doing in the prisons right now. I don't mind if the government privately investigates the photos and the people behind them, but getting into an uproar over things that have already happened is pointless and will not prevent future abuse.

in my opinion, it's more about shock, like, "oh my, look at this terrible horrible thing and be upset". it's entertainment, exploitation. and I think it's sick.

The serious answer? It's all about government transparency. You can't go forward without fully confronting your past. The Holocaust was all in the past, but all official documentation is necessary to be released. Maybe now with Obama, there is ZERO abuse of any kind in these prisons, but I'm doubting it. If the U.S. is serious about re-claiming their integrity on the world stage, releasing these photos and saying "We fucked up badly, but we will NEVER do this ever again anywhere" should send out a positive message.

That's my take.

DroppinScience

05-15-2009, 06:18 PM

This blog entry from "The Nation" is a bit wishy-washy, but at least is good for illuminating both sides of the argument on whether to release or not to release these photographs and compares it to past decisions on releasing photos of Emmett Till and so-called "pro-lifers" showing photos of botched abortions.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/436038/the_torture_photos

Ultimately I have to side with releasing these photos. Suppressing them doesn't change the fact that these heinous acts still happened.

yeahwho

05-15-2009, 06:53 PM

The pictures are an important piece of documentation, if I felt that any release of "Enhanced Interrogation" pictures would harm more people than by not releasing them I would say, do not release them. In this case I think it is less a threat to humankind to release them. Lets get on with this.

Because you know, enhanced interrogation seems an awful lot like torture... they called it torture (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/verschfte_verne.html) back in the old days, before 2002.

yeahwho

05-15-2009, 06:58 PM

Helter Skelter & Dick Cheney

Jesse Ventura (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoqmH49VBC0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bradblog.com%2F%3Fp%3D7148&feature=player_embedded): You Give Me a Water Board, Dick Cheney and One Hour...

kaiser soze

05-15-2009, 07:05 PM

Well with the previous batch of pictures I'm sure someone is afraid of some pictures coming out that don't really document shit but show how sick people can be. The images could be helpful in prosecution and hopefully bringing this to light with the public (again), but it could damage U.S. relations abroad....

wait, we still are good friends with everyone right?

didn't bush say something along the lines that if you have nothing to hide what are you worried about?

so what are they worried about?

yeahwho

05-15-2009, 07:16 PM

didn't bush say something along the lines that if you have nothing to hide what are you worried about?

Bush said a lot more than just that, here is what he said in 2003 to the United Nations (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/04/22/memories.aspx).

The United States is committed to the world-wide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example. I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture and in undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment.

Dorothy Wood

05-15-2009, 07:25 PM

sorry DS, but I think you're being a little naive and perhaps a little sensational.

first of all, we have national...international really, security to worry about. I for one, think it's pointless to create more animosity towards the united states right now when we're trying to change how things are done. honestly, the very fact that the photos depict people being humiliated only furthers the humiliation. and the nudity is offensive (especially to devout muslims), no matter if the victims' faces are covered or not.

the photos exist, yes, and I think that's enough to know. I don't think the images need to be splashed across the news.

that article made reference to Emmett Till and lynching, which is a completely different situation. not everybody knew that those things happened, therefore the photos were powerful and shocked people into doing something about it.

now, the only purpose of showing a shocking picture is to shock. because what the fuck is anybody going to do about torture in iraqi prisons? the public was already outraged, we had our scapegoats (Lynndie England, Rumsfeld, Bush), people were punished, and people are keeping tabs on the situation.

I'm all for transparency, but good god, there's a difference between using information for change and using information to sell ad space. nobody's going to rush over to iraq to set those prisoners free when they see those pictures. perhaps it will bolster iraqi advocacy groups or something, but I can't see it doing much else. especially when some of those people could actually be criminals who most people have little pity for.

I dunno, this is one of those things that make me get angry at left wing activists. Obama's decision is sensible as fuck. maybe don't get so worked up about photos and protesting and go try to make an actual change in society by doing actual work and getting your priorities straight*.

*this sentence not necessarily directed at you, droppin.

kaiser soze

05-15-2009, 07:40 PM

actually now that I think about it - releasing the photos is the better idea

the cat is out of the bag, the people know these pictures exist so refusing to show the images quite possibly will be interpreted as contempt towards those seeking the truth and justice

bush was a walking contradiction his whole presidency - the complete opposite of a good leader (n)

Bob

05-15-2009, 07:43 PM

what does cheney think we should do? we should do the opposite

Dorothy Wood

05-15-2009, 07:59 PM

god damn it!

fine, allow the pictures to be released, but ban them from the press or something. oh no, but banning things is censorship! oh no oh no. fuck.

see what kind of mess we have now. it's so stupid.

just put them on a website and copyright them or something so nobody can use them in the paper or on other websites or t.v. sure it'll still get everywhere in the world, but it will be harder.

I fucking hate the media. and this is what this is about. it's ridiculous. FREEDOM! TRANSPARENCY! yeah fucking right, keep selling it. we're all just eating it up and turning on a man who is doing something sensible. it's so dumb. so many other problems in this world.

:mad:

DroppinScience

05-16-2009, 12:46 AM

what does cheney think we should do? we should do the opposite

Exactly. This is a serious question: how would ANY of you react if it was the Bush administration (or even a McCain administration) faced with this situation and deciding to fight the release of these torture photos?

I do think the very problem with the 2-party system in America is there are those who will tolerate something from the administration that belongs to their political party (or by default falls closer to your own ideals) that they would never put up with if it was the other party in power making the decisions.

I realize that Obama's own motivations most likely have better intentions than a potential motivation from the Bush-Cheney, but I still think one should speak up on something they disagree with no matter who has the White House.

yeahwho

05-16-2009, 01:40 AM

The release of the photos is inevitable, I could give a rats ass if I see these photos, it does me no good. Does Bush, Cheney and Rove not want us to see what they think of justice?

It's a foregone conclusion some of these photos will be released, I agree with this Gawker (http://gawker.com/5253864/if-youre-angry-about-the-torture-photos-youre-being-played-by-obama) piece, If You're Angry About the Torture Photos, You're Being Played By Obama.

During Vietnam they showed people blowing their heads off, POW's being marched down the street, villages being pillaged and burned and coffins of our boys coming back home. Remember this was not 24 hour news, it was a half hour a night by what was then the only three networks in America, NBC, CBS and ABC.

Dorothy Wood

05-16-2009, 02:02 AM

this thread is devoid of rational thought.

yeahwho

05-16-2009, 05:26 AM

this thread is devoid of rational thought.

Torture turns out to be against our own laws and devoid of rational thought. International treaties were broken. 91,000 people are dead in the Iraq war.

None of this is rational, we have become a living terror and economical fantasyland.

The bubble has burst, it's depressing as all fucking get out and nobody is happy about this. I don't believe terrorists should have fresh eggs and slippers. Fuck them if they try to kill humans, I'm sick of the hate... still here in the USA we can and should do better than torture. Those pictures are documentation of a period of time when our trusted servants went against our will. Nothing more, nothing less.

Planetary

05-16-2009, 09:49 AM

maybe that guy thought he was a bat?

DroppinScience

05-16-2009, 02:59 PM

this thread is devoid of rational thought.

So positions you don't agree with are irrational? :rolleyes:

yeahwho

05-16-2009, 03:05 PM

Could it be that the pentagon has such a low regard for popular culture they didn't realize how digitalized and self obsessed the texting generation is?

This generation twitters eye blinks, fuck this generation documents pee breaks, this generation takes pictures of every earthly surface and records bowel movements.

This generation is now in the military and they're like Nixon on steroids.

Anyway it's no surprise there are pictures floating all over the www. it is a surprise that anyone would think that wouldn't happen.

Documad

05-16-2009, 05:58 PM

So positions you don't agree with are irrational? :rolleyes:

This thread is full of links and platitudes. I mostly agree with the left on this but it's not an easy issue and it's tough to be the president. It's easy to say that we should air all our dirty laundry but there's a price, and I'm not sure we know what that price is. Of course there's also a price in not airing our dirty laundry. And I agree with yeahwho--I'm not sure anything can be kept secret anymore. This is why the 9/11 yahoos are so dumb. The government can't keep anything secret. Someone will always release the embarrassing photos, etc.

I enjoyed that video of my former governor though. (y)

Dorothy Wood

05-16-2009, 10:12 PM

This thread is full of links and platitudes.

I enjoyed that video of my former governor though. (y)

thank you. and thumbs up to Ventura too. even though I miss his mustache.

to anyone I've offended: I stand by my statement, though perhaps could have put it more politely. nobody has said for certain why these photos need to be released. maybe you might ask yourself why you even want to see these photos? freedom of information? would you also like to see photos of american crime victims? how about more photos of piles of dead iraqis killed by americans? when you watch the news and see a photo of a dead kid, do you decide to run out and become a crime fighter? do you rush out and buy a one-way ticket to iraq?

is it important to see the torture photos because the american people pay the offending soldiers' and officers' paychecks?

I don't want to see photos of torture. I know they exist and that's enough for me. they should be kept and used for evidence, not splashed across television and computer screens.

say the pictures are released, they're passed around and everyone stares and them and then feels real real bad for about 20 minutes. then what? you update your facebook status?

you know, we're not the only ones looking at them. creeps are too, nut jobs. people who like that shit, people who will see the photos and enjoy what they see. and beyond the creeps, terrorist cells will use these photos to refuel the dwindling fires of anti-american rage. doesn't matter that this happened years ago, these are new photos, which can easily be sold as happening right now.

all I want is for the torturers and torture-enablers to be punished. demonize them, ruin their lives, fine. show their mug shots, put them in jail forever. I think it's completely unnecessary to create a pitchfork-wielding mob calling for these people's heads though. crimes even more heinous are committed every day.

my point is people don't need to see photos of torture to know that it's wrong. if nobody had ever seen photos of torture before, it'd be a different story. in my opinion, the more you look at stuff like that, the less power it has. the less disturbing it becomes. it damages our collective pysche.

the whole thing reeks of sensationalism, exploitation.

kaiser soze

05-16-2009, 11:35 PM

I share much of your feelings on this and I have a sinking suspicion that the threat of these images coming out now (rather than when bush was in office) might place a black cloud over Obama's administration, also swelling anti-American sentiment (if it is possible to swell any more)

What I don't like is that many have placed the U.S. in this righteous role in the middle east and need to see the truth. Bringing the truth to the public would be righteous. For 6 years the war has been filtered to the American public - there needs to be a catalyst to gain great opinion for ending the war and this could be it. Enough is enough but placing our heads in the sand won't help us see justice. Those who ordered and administered torture deserved to be outed - they did this on our dime, they did this in the name of our nation, they did this in spite of international law and sadly at times they tortured innocent people.

The previous pictures should have ended this - why is there talk of more, how far have they gone and for what?

If the images are released or not, I hope the discussion has generated inquiries, investigations, and a new examination of where this "war" has been and is going

yeahwho

05-17-2009, 02:27 AM

Whats interesting to me besides the acts of torture are the smiling faces of the captors and high fives. These men and women are serving on our behalf and they are acting as if this is acceptable behavior, as if a day at the ass pyramid and testicle wires was a celebration.

Talk about some sickness and creepiness. Doesn't that strike anybody else as mentally deranged? These people are going home to families and kids?

RobMoney$

05-17-2009, 02:36 AM

There are many bizarre aspects to Obama's decision to try to suppress evidence of America's detainee abuse, beginning with the newfound willingness of so many people to say:
"We want our leaders to suppress information that reflects poorly on what our government does."
One would think that it would be impossible to train a citizenry to be grateful to political officials for concealing evidence of government wrongdoing, or to accept the idea that evidence that reflects poorly on the conduct of political leaders should, for that reason alone, be covered-up:
"Obama and his military commanders decide when it's best that we're kept in the dark, and I'm thankful when they keep from me things that reflect poorly on my government because I trust them to decide what I should and should not know."
It's the fantasy of every political leader to have a citizenry willing to think that way ("I know it's totally unrealistic, but wouldn't it be great if we could actually convince people that it's for their own good when we cover-up evidence of government crimes?").

But what is ultimately even more amazing is the claim that suppressing these photographs is necessary to prevent an inflammation of anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world generally and Afghanistan specifically. That claim is coming from the same people who are doing this (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6237189.ece):

From an article by Glen Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/14/afghanistan/index.html)

Dorothy Wood

05-17-2009, 03:19 AM

I respect that glen guy, but there's a difference between "suppressing" or "covering up" or "hiding" and just not revealing something. it's still evidence right? the photos exist and are part of an investigation as far as I can tell. correct me if I'm wrong. anyway, I couldn't take that article seriously because it was too exasperated and ham-fisted.

from the AP
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090514/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_pentagon_abuse_photos

"These photos represent isolated incidents where the offending servicemen and women have already been prosecuted," said Brian Wise, executive director of Military Families United.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he had once held the view that it might be best to "go through the pain once" and release a large batch of images now, since so many are at issue in multiple lawsuits. But he — and the president — changed their minds when Odierno and McKiernan expressed "very great worry that release of these photographs will cost American lives," Gates said before the House Armed Services Committee.
"That's all it took for me," Gates said.

in my opinion there's nothing much to gain from releasing the photos, but a lot to lose.

saz

05-17-2009, 02:12 PM

(y)

There are many bizarre aspects to Obama's decision to try to suppress evidence of America's detainee abuse, beginning with the newfound willingness of so many people to say:

"We want our leaders to suppress information that reflects poorly on what our government does." One would think that it would be impossible to train a citizenry to be grateful to political officials for concealing evidence of government wrongdoing, or to accept the idea that evidence that reflects poorly on the conduct of political leaders should, for that reason alone, be covered-up:

"Obama and his military commanders decide when it's best that we're kept in the dark, and I'm thankful when they keep from me things that reflect poorly on my government because I trust them to decide what I should and should not know." It's the fantasy of every political leader to have a citizenry willing to think that way ("I know it's totally unrealistic, but wouldn't it be great if we could actually convince people that it's for their own good when we cover-up evidence of government crimes?").

But what is ultimately even more amazing is the claim that suppressing these photographs is necessary to prevent an inflammation of anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world generally and Afghanistan specifically. That claim is coming from the same people who are doing this:

From an article by Glen Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/14/afghanistan/index.html)

yeahwho

05-17-2009, 03:05 PM

America.... Fuck Yeah!

RobMoney$

05-17-2009, 03:18 PM

in my opinion there's nothing much to gain from releasing the photos, but a lot to lose.

While I agree 100% with your stance about the potential for the images being used to sensationalize and shock to be disgusting, I believe there is something extremely important to be gained. US Government transparency.

War, apparently is a dirty job. On occasion bad stuff is going to happen, it always does. I fully understand and accept that our military officials need to employ interrogation techniques that to the average civilian could appear unnecessary. They need to do such things to get information to keep us civilians safe from our enemies, and some things are better left unknown.

From what I've read about this deal, the pictures are destined to come out due to a court ruling. Obama can't stop it. The only thing that can stop it is a Supreme Court ruling, that has been deemed unlikely. Considering Obama's platform calling for transparancey from his administration, I'm not sure why he's flopping so much on this?
The only thing I can think of is that perhaps now that he's been in office and has been briefed on all the inside info and all the dirty little secrets about why and what went on in Iraq, maybe Obama is starting to believe that Bush, Cheney, Rove & Co. weren't that crazy after all?
Hard to believe, I know, but I can't see a better argument for his about face at this point?

The bottom line is that this is a military problem. Obama can't change what has happened in the past, but he absolutely has the power to make sure those responsible are punished appropriatley and ensure torture and the rules of war are not violated under his administration.

saz

05-17-2009, 05:42 PM

no rob, the military doesn't have to do those things because torture simply doesn't work. under torture, you can make anyone say anything. plus more importantly, i'm sure the last thing anyone wants are for american soldiers to be brutally tortured by iraqi insurgents and criminals, or taliban foot soldiers in afghanistan.

torture is grossly immoral and not practical whatsoever. there are much more effective interrogation techniques that can be applied which will get captives talking, which is exactly what transpired with high profile al qaeda operatives who were captured by the us.

the united states should not torture, as great nations don't do so, and it is truly despicable and evil that bush & co. wanted to institutionalize it.

RobMoney$

05-17-2009, 06:02 PM

I never meant to imply that I was in support of anyone using torture as an interrogation technique. I do not however consider some of the techniques used by SERE officers to be "torture".

Things like Prolonged Isolation, Prolonged Sleep Deprivation, Exploitation of Phobias, Sensory bombardment (such as prolonged loud noise and/or bright lights) are things I consider NOT to be torture.
I also believe treating enemy captives extremely well can also be used as a technique to get desired info.

kaiser soze

05-17-2009, 06:29 PM

Things like Prolonged Isolation, Prolonged Sleep Deprivation, Exploitation of Phobias, Sensory bombardment (such as prolonged loud noise and/or bright lights) are things I consider NOT to be torture.

You may think it isn't torture but it is. It induces psychosis, hallucinations, mental illness, catatonic states, severe depression, irreparable fear, and PTSD - the biggest problem for mental health in our own soldiers.

These tactics may seem rather innocuous because we all believe we could handle being exposed to sensory overload and deprivation but under extreme mental and emotional distress they are no less damaging than slamming someone's fingers in a door or twisting their testicles in a knot. This is the very essence of torture - leaving someone so mentally (and physically) broken they supposedly provide what you need.

One of the reasons why such provisions and rules of handling and interrogating detainees is to keep our military personnel in check - if they are given carte blanche then they can easily become what the they are fighting against and I as a veteran will not support my own military becoming terrorists because torture is terror.

Feel free to read Appendix M of this

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm2-22-3.pdf

RobMoney$

05-17-2009, 07:48 PM

As part of the Army's efforts to gain actionable intelligence in the war
on terrorism, HUMINT collectors may be authorized, in accordance with this appendix, to employ the separation interrogation technique, by exception, to meet unique and critical operational requirements. The purpose of separation is to deny the detainee the opportunity to communicate with other detainees in order to keep him from learning counter-resistance techniques or gathering new information to support a cover story; decreasing the detainee's resistance to interrogation.

Appendix M states that seperation interrogation technique is the suggested method.
...I also said I believed it was an acceptable technique.

I'm missing your point here kaiser.

kaiser soze

05-17-2009, 08:02 PM

sorry

m-26 states

M-26. The purpose of separation is to deny the detainee the opportunity to communicate with other detainees in order to keep him from learning counter-resistance techniques or gathering new information to support a cover story, decreasing the detainee's resistance to interrogation. Separation does not constitute sensory deprivation, which is prohibited. For the purposes of this manual, sensory deprivation is defined as an arranged situation causing significant psychological distress due to a prolonged absence, or significant reduction, of the usual external stimuli and perceptual opportunities. Sensory deprivation may result in extreme anxiety, hallucinations, bizarre thoughts, depression, and anti-social behavior. Detainees will not be subjected to sensory deprivation.

Just backing up my argument against the other tactics you believe are not considered torture with official documentation.

that is all

Pres Zount

05-17-2009, 10:39 PM

I consider putting question marks at the end of statements to be torture.

QueenAdrock

05-20-2009, 12:29 PM

I read the book "Unspeakable Acts, Ordinary People: the Dynamics of Torture" by John Conroy for a seminar a few years back, and I highly recommend it. They interview groups who have been tortured. The first group of people were questioned about having IRA sympathies, and were tortured for information. Sleep deprivation, noise bombardment, isolation have all been described as the worst part of the torture they had, and they had daily beatings, were starved, given no water, and had no access to toilets so they had to urinate and defecate in their own clothes.

It's hard to imagine if it's never happened to you, but those tortured say that starvation, dehydration, and beating are physiological and eventually stop. Deprivation of sleep depletes the body of the highly-needed REM and causes you to hallucinate and basically go insane with a mental breakdown. There's a reason why we need to sleep every night, the body can't function otherwise. After 6 days of sleep deprivation, one of the men completely forgot he had a wife and children, though he'd been married for over 30 years. You'd also think at that point, any information the person may have had would be bogus.

Either way, it's hard to determine how to get information out of people, but I do know the US is above resorting to mental and physical trauma...or at least, should be. I agree that treating them well can get good information, since there have been cases that show that. I really don't care what Dick Cheney seems to think, I refuse to believe that torture worked in Iraq when it would be the only time in history where it has. Like saz said, you can make anyone say anything when you torture them, but it doesn't make what they're saying true.

Documad

05-20-2009, 08:32 PM

Along similar lines, I went to a conference with British lawyers who talked about the IRA prison/interrogation techniques. They highly recommended against repeating their mistakes. They said that for every potential terrorist they dealt with, the harsh treatment recruited a bunch more real terrorists among that detainee's family members.

And that's completely separate from the fact that some of the people were innocent in the first place.