Ahhh crap!

there seems to be little incremental value to Americans in having access to these pictures and videos

This is just a district court decision, though.

Saying the United States “does not surrender to blackmail,” a judge...

wtf?

A Clinton appointee, putting civil liberties ahead of national security. Go figure.

it's not just the ammo it gives to america's enemies. it's also the effect on national security and popular opinion on the war. bad move by the judge.

"It is right and good to be suspicious of the government. However, one must also be suspicious of America's enemies. The left is quite good about the former. Regarding the latter... not so much."

Yes and no. The Left is awfully suspicious of the government when it comes to the First Amendment, Equal Protection Clause or Due Process Clause.

But they don't seem the least bit suspicious of the government when it comes to gun control, taxation, spending on social programs or federally-funded abortion or universal health care, or drowning young women in a few feet of water while drunk. Nope, nothing to see here, move along.

Leftist suspicion of government tends to be very narrowly focused, indeed.

I think imprisonment for misogynist Islamofascists at the hands of angry women is great publicity...

The key word is deterrence.

Let's put Lyndi England on every bill board in the middle east with that cig dangling from her mouth taunting the potential recruits.

Maybe the pictures and video could just be made to
disappear ala the Able Danger info.

The judge erred. It is right and good to be suspicious of the government. However, one must also be suspicious of America's enemies.

Some detailed legal analysis, that is.

Shorter Ace of Spades: people who think we're bad should not have more evidence of us behaving badly because then they might think we're bad.

Any chance they can appeal the judges ruling?

"or drowning young women in a few feet of water while drunk"

ENOUGH already! Haven't I suffered enough?

Jeez, you commit one negligent homicide and they never let you live it down ...

The existing pictures are bad enough as regards Jihadi recuitment, I think. It'll be bad because the release will shove the Abu Graib issue back to the top of the news cycle for a few more months.

Still, I think they should be released. A lot of people seem like they're in denial about how bad this might have been, and I think we need an honest conversation about this kind of thing, and fast.

A lot of people seem like they're in denial about how bad this might have been

Oh please GMAFB. This was no worse (indeed much milder) than the crap that has happened in any major conflict over say...THE LAST FIVE FUCKING MILLENIA. Naive pinheads like you make me sick - this was NOT the frigging Bataan death march. This was NOT the killing fields of Cambodia. You're all whipped up about supposed abuse - but *I* am concerned about the 12 or so thusfar unexplained fatalities in AG that nobody pays any attention to. I want to know what happened to those poor SOBs. Pvt England doesn't interest me in the least -- UNLESS someone can show that she is the one who was KILLED THOSE PRISONERS.

The difference here is the distribution capability of modern media allowed it to be ultra-hyped into something that it isn't. In years past, this would have never even made on the radar scope. Its that insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

Unless you plan on having a military staffed by Mr Rogers and Captain Kangaroo types you always risk this sort of thing happening.

Abu Ghraib has already received 10 X more attention than it deserves. At some point the continuous bashing became harassment.

Once said "Enough Already" and after that ...

Hostile Environment !

I'm still waiting for those responsible for the policies that led to abuses at Abu Ghraib to be held accountable -- i.e., Bush, Gonzalez, Rumsfeld, Cambone, Sanchez, Miller, et al.

I guess I'll be waiting a long time.

How would you know how bad the behavior depecited in the pictures are, Purple? The public hasn't seen them. That's kinda the point of the lawsuit.

What? Abu Graib wasn't the Bataan Death March? Who knew?! If you're the hard-headed realist, why not release the effing pictures so we can see what actually happened and I don't have to listen to endless "I had worse during rush week" brush-offs.

I may be the naive pinhead making you sick, but don't you think that a dose of additional reality might make the public more interested in investigating those 12 deaths you purport to be so worked up about?

Just FYI, three of the four videotapes are being released (heavily edited). One is being withheld.

How would you know how bad the behavior depecited in the pictures are, Purple?

They are guaranteed to be nothing new - a yawner.

Otherwise they would have been leaked previously to the media by democrats with access to them.

The problem with releasing the photos & videos is that the radical Islamists and liberals worldwide use them to define the narrative of the Iraq situation. Not to mention firing up the terrorists and their potential recruits.

It comes at a particularly bad time, since the offensives in the north have been very effective in disrupting and discouraging the terrorists. American military commanders are now predicting that terrorist activity will have a near-term surge, and then a decline next spring. That decline is unlikely to happen with a renewed frenzy over Abu Ghraib.

One would think that the American public could suspend their right to know until these negative consequences are no longer likely. Now the left will use the renewed violence and increased deaths of American military and Iraqi civilians as a rationale for American withdrawal. All the while never taking the very personal responsibility they bear for directly exacerbating the situation.

why not release the effing pictures so we can see what actually happened

Oh, well FUCKING EXCUSE ME for trying to keep American troops alive in the field.

You on the other hand, probably should just sign on with Al-Jazeera and be pitching from that side if you think this won't have any impact.

make the public more interested in investigating those 12 deaths you purport to be so worked up about?

Well, the MSM seems uninterested. They had two years of AG-TV and NYT whining and scarcely mention it even in a footnote. Why? No pics, no video, NO STORY.

What makes you think they'll pick up the mantle now? That strikes me as an amazingly optimistic position.

So. . . . . This will put Abu Graib back on page one, which is BAD because terror recuitment central will pull back from the brink and start turning out Jihadis like there's no tomorrow, since they were short on material before this one.

BUT! It won't inspire anyone to rehash the whole Abu Graib fiasco in detail, even if the tapes/pics show violence and refresh the issue. All I remember hearing about the suppressed photos is that they were shown in a closed session and scuttlebutt was that they were far, far worse than what was released.

Look, I'm not willing to write the administration a blank freaking check because there's a war on. They want this suppressed because it'll make us look bad. For some strange reason, I don't think that's sufficient grounds - given that I suspect that a lot of people will be surprised by how bad AG was given that there's been a precious lot of "oh, one naked pyramid - who cares".

SparcVark:

But you don't want responsibility for the blood. Tell me that: "Yes, I personally think that my gaining a full understanding of the Abu Ghraib atrocities is worth a prolongation of the conflict and the deaths of Americans and Iraqis." Once you've said that, then you can have your damn photos.

It was also ruled a violation of civil rights laws to call a communist unamerican.

But you don't want responsibility for the blood. Tell me that: "Yes, I personally think that my gaining a full understanding of the Abu Ghraib atrocities is worth a prolongation of the conflict and the deaths of Americans and Iraqis." Once you've said that, then you can have your damn photos.

My understanding? No.

The country as a whole's understanding, plus the value of the precedent? Yes.

I think even wartime censorship should have some limits, and I think mistreatment of prisoners is a particularly sensitive issue in a long, nasty, counterinsurgency war.

SparcVark:

So you believe that you have an understanding of the situation that 'the country as a whole' does not share. Typically elitist. I think the country understands exactly what went on - they had little choice given the unrelenting, sensationalistic media play to which they were previously exposed. Lynndie England is already a household name, as is Abu Ghraib. But you think the country needs to see more photos for its own good. At any cost.

It is at once so implicitly arrogant and laughably naive that it wouldn't be worthy of discussion if lives weren't at stake.

. . . a long, nasty, counterinsurgency war.

Longer and nastier for your participation. Make no mistake - if more crimes have been committed than we have already seen prosecuted, I want to see justice done. And if the entire proceedings could be conducted without inflaming our enemies, I'd want it done publicly and immediately. I, however, rate the lives of those on our side more highly than dredging up more evidence of already-investigated crimes.

SparcVark,

"But you don't want responsibility for the blood. Tell me that: "Yes, I personally think that my gaining a full understanding of the Abu Ghraib atrocities is worth a prolongation of the conflict and the deaths of Americans and Iraqis." Once you've said that, then you can have your damn photos.

My understanding? No.

The country as a whole's understanding, plus the value of the precedent? Yes.

I think even wartime censorship should have some limits, and I think mistreatment of prisoners is a particularly sensitive issue in a long, nasty, counterinsurgency war.

Posted by SparcVark at September 29, 2005 07:54 PM

So. . . . . This will put Abu Graib back on page one, which is BAD because terror recuitment central will pull back from the brink and start turning out Jihadis like there's no tomorrow, since they were short on material before this one.

BUT! It won't inspire anyone to rehash the whole Abu Graib fiasco in detail, even if the tapes/pics show violence and refresh the issue. All I remember hearing about the suppressed photos is that they were shown in a closed session and scuttlebutt was that they were far, far worse than what was released.

Look, I'm not willing to write the administration a blank freaking check because there's a war on. They want this suppressed because it'll make us look bad. For some strange reason, I don't think that's sufficient grounds - given that I suspect that a lot of people will be surprised by how bad AG was given that there's been a precious lot of "oh, one naked pyramid - who cares".

Posted by SparcVark at September 29, 2005 07:14 PM"

Right. Because you aren't responsible for keeping American soldiers and civilians alive, you don't care if releasing videos just when things are finally calming down after the investigation of Abu Ghraib contributes to the morale and welfare of al-Qaeda and al-Jazeera and Islamofascists bent on worldwide domination and the bloodiest possible murders of Americans anywhere, anytime. So it will get another 80 days worth of hype and innuendo from the NYT and WP, what harm can that cause American foreign policy and business? Just because it will cost another 100 billion dollars over the next several years to fight renewed Arab hatred and lies, we need to spread our dirty laundry to every enemy in the world, for their supreme benefit.

"For some strange reason, I don't think that's sufficient grounds" .... to suppress the photos. Because you think showing that an Iraqi prisoner buttfucking a 12 yr old detainee and the US guards not stopping them constitutes a war crime. You are stupid. "Even wartime censorship should have some limits". You bet. It should limit the damage to the honor and reputation of the United States. Not add to it, numbnuts.

Glad you are not in charge. Of course, if you were, those stories would never see the light of day. Because one of your Democrat staffers would call the papers and say, "this will hurt the war effort and will hurt the Democrats politically." And the editors would salute and say, we'll take this one for America -- as long as it helps the Dhimmicrats. But when a Republican administration, which doesn't kowtow to journalists with an IQ of 80 who think they know better how to fight a war and build democracies than professionals who've been doing it for the last 30 yrs, they say"No. First Amendment guarantees we can say anything we want without getting the full story".

Do I believe journalists want America to be conquered? No. Do I think they are smart enough to recognize when their actions and stories are contributing significantly to the defeat of America -- worldwide? No. I think they are stupid, shortsighted, ignorant of the true world, and partisan -- to a person. My pet monkey could do a better job writing news. And she would be fairer to every party 90% of the time.

There's two sides to every story. And journalists and Dhimmicrats will always print one and suppress the other. I'll let you guess which. And do I think your position, -- that anything bad which happens under American stewardship is grounds to quit, surrender and give up in Iraq --, is unsafe, shortsighted, and abandons innocent foreigners to a life of slavery under Islamic despots and killers who will murder, rape, torture, fold, spindle and mutilate their fellow Muslims and other human beings? You bet.

You are wrong. There is no justification for dredging up the worst we can find about ourselves and give it, wrapped in pink ribbons and on a silver platter, to our enemies. Doing so makes you unpatriotic (because the only reason you are doing it is to hurt the administration, who happens to represent America to the foreign world right now -- like it or not--). I will never agree with you, so don't try to win me over. Until you can learn to love your country more than you hate George W. Bush, you and I have nothing further to discuss.

Subsunk

What ever happened to wartime sensorship? Man I used that one a lot!

Need anymore reasons why we ned to put these judicial nit-wits under control i mean if a judge orders a dangerous crinimal released and the crinimal gose out and kill again dont you think the judge should be indited for aiding and abeting a felon in the commishion of a crime?

They want this suppressed because it'll make us look bad. For some strange reason, I don't think that's sufficient grounds

So what's an "acceptable" American body count instigated by this?

Pick a number, any number, then defend it.

I'll throw out 20 as a plausible starter. Is this AG info worth an additional 20 body bags to you? Yes or no?

Release the videos/photos of Graner and Lyndie having sex. They did that, but their defense team naturally didn't leak THOSE photos since it wouldn't sell the "Rummy ordered us to do this" line.

and guess what? I bet that they still won't release those due to "privacy" concerns.

So we'll end up once again with people BELIEVING that Rummy or Gonzales sent a memo directly to Graner telling him to build butt pyramids.

Yep. Right. Sure.

If the DOD wants to torture people I'd expect a 10 lb. manual along with classes and such.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2004/05/13/story147437.html

RELEASE THESE PHOTOS NOW.

Then show me the memo from Rummy telling England to have hot sex with other MPs in front of inmates and to photo those (probably asked for a cc to his e-mail address the old perv.)

Anybody remember what year it was when FDR finally allowed photos of US war dead to be printed in the media?

I think 1943 and the reason for the change of rules?

Because FDR was worried that people in the USA were taking the war effort too lightly thinking it was already won.

But now it's different: hmmmm, we might be winning this one - better make sure it's like Vietnam and release some photos.

There's some really top-notch legal analysis here. People who almost assuredly have never read the text of FOIA calling the judge a "nit-wit" is pretty hilarious.

I also like the new Right-wing principle the primary criterion for all decisions is whether terrorists will be inflamed. I eagerly await the calls by the commenters on this board for pulling troops out of Saudi Arabia.

I'm not really buying into the "it inflames the terrorists to hate us" arguments. Yes, al-jazzeera and our enemies will use them, but it's not like they need reasons to hate us.

That said, I'm suspicious of anyone on the other side of this argument who argues disclosure for any reason other than it will be used to score political points against the administration. Including the ACLU and "disclose them" commenters in the thread.

Well, Dave, you know the line of authority goes from Rumsfeldt straight to Lynndie England. I can't see how you could look at it any other way. Bush himself ordered Rumsfeldt to tell Lynndie to torture away and have some laughs, too.

Though I understand Don himself showed her the nifty Point and Smoke move he developed as a finale to a vigorous Charleston. She really took that and ran with it, no?

Correction: "Saudi Arabia" should be "Iraq"

Hey SparcVark,

I'm still waiting for what you consider an "acceptable" body bag number as a result of this release.

*chirp*

*chirp*

*chirp*

I also like the new Right-wing principle the primary criterion for all decisions is whether terrorists will be inflamed.

It's a far sight better than the Left's principle of 'rights without responsibilities or regard for consequences.'

Is it that: you don't believe that this will inflame the terrorists and help their recruiting (it did last time); or that you don't think that it will result in an increase in the violence; or that you feel that the need for exposing the American public to more photos and videos so that they really get the point (despite seeing it on the front page of the NYT for 32 straight days) outweighs the damage it will do?

Your argument boils down to a heckler's veto. Constitution no likee.

Your argument boils down to a heckler's veto. Constitution no likee.

Unless there is a war on. Which there is. So the heckler's veto has nothing to with this case.

But the real question is why you want to incite violence - what's your real goal here?

Yes, the First Amendment disappears in time of war, because you say so. No argument required.

As it turns out, my motivations, far from being "the real question" of whether FOIA mandates disclosure of the material in question, are actually irrelevant. I'm pretty sure of this because neither the government nor the ACLU has noticed my deposition or subpoenaed my testimony.

Yes, the First Amendment disappears in time of war, because you say so.

Well, it does on an as needed basis, but that's nowhere close to the point. First of all, arguing that releasing the photos and videos is a celebration of First Amendment rights is quite a stretch. Second, no one is arguing the legality (though the judge's decision is perplexing) - we're arguing the morality, utility and motivation.Finally, if your opinions are so irrelevant, why are you bothering commenting here?

In any case,I think it was more than clear that I was asking how you personally rationalize the disclosure with regard to the negative impact it will have. Your silly evasion borders on dishonesty.

First of all, arguing that releasing the photos and videos is a celebration of First Amendment rights is quite a stretch.

Are you planning to make an argument to support this at some pont, or is it just more ipse dixit?

Second, no one is arguing the legality (though the judge's decision is perplexing) - we're arguing the morality, utility and motivation.

You may be. I'm arguing the legality. Many commenters, and the host, have said the decision was wrong on the law, without appearing to have even read the decision, much less that statute at issue.

I think it was more than clear that I was asking how you personally rationalize the disclosure with regard to the negative impact it will have.

And I think it was more than clear that I was discussing whether the case was properly decided. The link to the page regarding the heckler's veto under First Amendment jurisprudence might have clued you in. I was under the impression that placing one's moral and political views in a privileged position vis a vis the law was thought to be "judicial activism" 'round these parts.

The link to the page regarding the heckler's veto under First Amendment jurisprudence might have clued you in.

It certainly clued me in to the fact that you were bringing the First Amendment into play where it had no relevance. The burden of proof of showing how the First Amendment relates to an FOIA case is yours, of course.

There are three points of interest under the current topic: 1) why the ACLU felt it was a net positive to file the suit; 2) why the left is fully supportive of the ACLU; and 3) why Judge Hellerstein decided against the admonitions of the military. I'm more interested in the 2nd point, you are more interested in the latter.

So let's address the last point. Back in August Hellerstein said:

"How can I ignore the expert opinion of General Myers, who is concerned with the safety of his troops?" the judge asked. "I can't substitute my opinion for the opinion of General Myers."

He said troops in Iraq "face danger every day and don't deserve to have that danger enlarged."

But then in his decision (p. 45), Hellerstein blows Gen. Myers off, finding that the FOIA exemptions do not protect peripherally targeted people, like our soldiers and Iraqi citizens. Part of his justification is that the terrorists will commit acts of violence regardless of the release of the photos/videos. This is a ridiculous argument since common sense, expert testimony, and past(but very recent) experience all show that the acts of violence will increase significantly if ready-made propaganda material like this is released.

It appears that based on precedents the judge could have extended the protection of Exemption 7(F), had he so chosen. He chose instead to uphold openness and transparency, pretending that there is no extra cost in implementing his decision. Just as you and the other liberal apologists pretend.

For the most part I wouldn't argue with his decision, but he gives short shrift to Myers' arguments, refuting them with his own self-admittedly unqualified conjecture. Perhaps Myers' points had no legal standing, but that is not the basis he used for rejecting them. I know nothing of FOIA law in general, but it appears to me that on this point Hellerstein's decision is weak.

While you are correct that the First Amendment does not bear directly on FOIA, and my reference to the First Amendment was glib, surely you are aware that courts often reject arguments in one context based on the fact that they are rejected in other contexts.

As for Hellerstein's "self-admittedly unqualified conjecture," that appears to be a gross misreading of the opinion. Hellerstein analyzed 7(F), properly distinguished Larouche and Living Rivers, noted 7(F)'s place in FOIA's structure as applying primarily to law enforcement, and refused to extend its protection to any situation where increased danger could be plausibly asserted. The blackmail bit is more of a rhetorical flourish that has unfortunately been hyped because the press prefers rhetoric to legal analysis. Overall, it appears Hellerstein he did exactly what conservatives are always claiming they want judges to do - based his decision on the text, history, structure, and purpose of the statute, rather than preferred policy outcomes.