Pixiq

my hard earned money went to help pay for these disgusting photos. I want to see them and see what our “heroes” do to the “bad guys”

Sometimes, people should grow up and realize that this isn’t an episode of GI Joe. Those are people, with lives, with family. Our “heroes” have no business using my tax money to torture them, thank you very much.

Anton,

You nailed it. We are funding this war. This is our war. So we have the right to see how our money is being spent.

It’s as simple as that.

What’s done is done. Releasing the photos would only inflame @ this point. There are certain things the Gov’t is involved in that we just don’t need to know.

For example, lots of things happened during the cold war, and we don’t know the intimate details of the Government’s inner working. Why now?

The President is charged with keeping us safe and there is no doubt in my mind that Bush has made the US a safer place. Don’t bet me wrong, I’m not Bush fan, but I will say that he probably did too good of a job keeping America safe. People have forgotten how they felt after 9/11. We’ll see how everyone would feel if another major tragedy happened again. These are people who want to kill us and our families….At any cost….And we’re worried about waterboarding and some abuse allegations. They started this by slaughtering 3,000+ innocent victims. Let the Gov’t do their thing. We need to look forward, not backwards.

Don,

We must learn from history, lest we be doomed to repeat it.

Considering that everybody knows that torture took place, refusing to release photo’s will only make it look like they have something further to hide.

I am highly in favor of the photos being released, with the add on that the victims faces be blurred if they request.
Just my opinion on it.

Note to Don: You said, There are certain things the Gov’t is involved in that we just don’t need to know… For example, lots of things happened during the cold war, and we don’t know the intimate details of the Government’s inner working. Why now?

The historical argument doesn’t work. The fact that we “don’t know” everything that “happened” (read: everything that was ordered) doesn’t mean that we that shouldn’t have known about these things.

Additionally, some people believe that the “inner workings” you’ve referred to aren’t “inner workings” after all, but prosecutable offenses, offenses that in some cases may call for the death penalty.

If crimes have been committed, the criminals need to be tried, convicted, and sentenced, and the sentences need to be carried out.

May I ask a reasonable question? This question isn’t original. I’ve seen it raised in the media, but I’ve never heard an answer that makes sense. Suppose that German and Japanese officials who’d tortured American soldiers in World War II had said: “It was part of our government’s inner workings. It’s in the past. This doesn’t serve any purpose. Let’s move forward.”

How would you have reacted? Don’t tell me that you would have been pleased to hear arguments of this type. The notion is absurd.

You also said, People have forgotten how they felt after 9/11. We’ll see how everyone would feel if another major tragedy happened again. These are people who want to kill us and our families.

This is the 9/11! TERROR! 9/11! TERROR! argument that I’ve referred to before. Don, please answer another reasonable question. The last time that I asked a torture enthusiast this question in person, I was sprayed with spittle. I’m glad that I’m standing farther back this time.

What does 9/11! TERROR! 9/11! TERROR! have to do with the men and boys who were innocent, and who were sold to U.S. forces for bounties or pulled off the street at random, taken away from their families, sodomized with objects, deprived of sleep to the point of psychosis, placed in torture positions that caused organ failure, mutilated with knives, or beaten to death?

They didn’t start this. They didn’t do anything. Some of these people have been released and are now involved in anti-American activities because they were tortured. They didn’t “want to kill us and our families” before. However, they’d like to do so now.

It’s quite possible that some of the innocent people who were tortured will kill Americans in the future. If this happens, the blood will be on Bush’s hands, and on yours.

You also said, there is no doubt in my mind that Bush has made the US a safer place.

This is too big a subject to address in a single forum post. However, I’d like to remind you that a CIA briefer warned Bush about 9/11 on August 6, 2001, less than 5 weeks before the attacks. Do you remember what Bush told him? Bush said: “All right. You’ve covered your ass, now. Get out of my office.” Bush apologists rarely talk about this incident. I’m not sure why.

In the interest of full disclosure, I’ll state where I stand personally on the issue of George W. Bush, the President and the man. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again:

Bush is likely to be remembered as one of the most horrifying and grotesque figures that appeared on the world scene between the years 1910 and 2010, a parody of a human being and of a leader, a thing without a soul.

Who cares if people were tortured. They yielded excellent information…Some of which undoubtedly saved many American lives. I could personally care less about the “rights” of some terrorist who is trying to kill and/or maim my family.

Obama should declassify the documents Dick Cheney has requested….So, we can all learn exactly what events were prevented. If your life was saved as a result, would you care if some demon terrorist was tortured a bit? The so called “torture” the US uses is nothing like what the rest of the world uses on our troops captured in the line of duty.

You people need to get your priorities straight.

This is a great website, BTW. I don’t trust cops one bit.

To Voice of UNreason….

You just don’t get it. First of all, there is no blood on my hands….It’s insulting and ignorant for you to say such.

Secondly, you act like innocent victims were grabbed while minding their own business and shipped off to Gitmo….Give me a break. Those people are the worst of the worst. Let me give you a few examples…..

Mullah Shahzada, a former Taliban field commander who apparently convinced officials at Guantanamo that he had sworn off violence, was freed in 2003, and immediately rejoined the Taliban. He was subsequently killed in battle in the summer of 2004 in Afghanistan. Maulvi Ghafar, a Taliban commander captured in 2001, was released in February 2004. He was subsequently killed in a shootout with Afghan government forces in September 2004. Abdullah Mesud, a Pakistani who was captured fighting alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan, bragged that he was able to hide his true identity for two years at Guantanamo before being released in March 2004. He was considered a low-risk security threat because of his artificial leg. After returning to Pakistan, Mesud led a group of Islamic militants—part of a campaign against the Pakistani government—that kidnapped two Chinese engineers working on a dam. One of the engineers and several militants were subsequently killed in a government raid.[4] Mesud is still at large.

Here are a few articles for you to chew on at your own pace:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1945640/posts

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,508506,00.html

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30415

Read here about how 62 released detainees have returned to terrorist activities and that does not include those who engage in propaganda.

The New York Times reported on the latest case of a detainee who returned to kill Americans. Said Ali al-Shihri is suspected of involvement in a deadly bombing of the US embassy in Yemen’s capital, Sana, in September 2008. He was released from GITMO to Saudi Arabian custody in 2007 and passed through a Saudi rehabilitation program for former jihadists before resurfacing as a terror leader in Yemen.

Yeah right…..these folks were taken off the street at random and taken away from their families. You are about as ignorant as they come. I’m done debating you because you aren’t even capable of realizing the obvious.

We ought to ship your ass off to the middle east and let you fight for your country that you continually rebuff. Would never happen because you’re too busy enjoying the liberties that others die for.

Despite the fact that I disagree with everything you say, I hope the next terrorist on US soil does not find you. Hopefully, President Obama will keep us all safe.

Note to Don: You said, Who cares if people were tortured. They yielded excellent information… Some of which undoubtedly saved many American lives. I could personally care less about the “rights” of some terrorist who is trying to kill and/or maim my family.

Don, you’ve talked about “terrorists” who were “trying to kill and/or maim” your family. However, many of the torture victims were innocent men and boys sold to U.S. forces by people who simply wanted to collect bounties. It was easy money. Additionally, when U.S. forces selected torture victims directly, they sometimes used remarkably silly criteria.

You haven’t addressed this issue at all. I’ll ask you again: What about the innocent people who were tortured?

Additionally, you don’t seem to understand that some of the torture victims are going to try to “kill and/or maim” your family now. You’ve turned them into terrorists. You haven’t addressed this issue either.

As far as “excellent information” goes, Bush obtained no useful information by torturing innocent people. When the torture campaign was set up, Bush’s team knew that innocent people might be caught up in the net. If I remember correctly, Rumsfeld didn’t have a major problem with this. He apparently pushed for a “total information” methodology. The basic idea was that the torture of innocent people might be a legitimate part of the process, because if somebody lives “there”, they must know something. However, it appears that the “total information” part of the torture campaign was a complete and utter failure.

Even when torture was applied to people who were actually guilty of something, it didn’t produce significant results. Definitely not on a regular basis, and possibly not at all. Don, the statement that you’ve made about “excellent information” simply isn’t true. By supporting the torture, you’ve become a torturer yourself, and you’ve given up part of your soul for nothing.

You’ve implied that you have a family. If that includes children, take the kids aside tomorrow. Tell them you’re proud to have tortured innocent men and boys. Tell them you’re proud to have tortured guilty people as well, even though it didn’t do much but create more terrorists.

Next Sunday, take the family to Church and pray out loud. After all, you’ve got nothing to hide from your children, do you? “Almighty God, give me the strength to torture others so that they will be more inclined to torture me.” Point to Jesus Christ hanging on the Cross. Tell the kids, “I did that, and I’m proud of it”.

Note to Don: I see that you wrote a second reply to my post 5 while I was composing my post 8. My post 8 is a response to your post 6. I haven’t addressed your post 7. I’ll pause for the moment to avoid possible confusion due to simultaneous posts.

Some brief remarks about the discussion itself:

You said, You are about as ignorant as they come. I’m done debating you because you aren’t even capable of realizing the obvious.

You’re free to communicate with people or to ignore them as you please. However, it’s inaccurate to say that you’re “done debating” somebody when you’ve failed to demonstrate that you understand what debate is.

As far as the “ignorant” part goes, Don, you amuse me. By the way, reason isn’t about education or intelligence. It isn’t even about “realizing the obvious”. It’s about being a rational being as opposed to an automaton. You’re controlled by your triggers, Don. With all due respect, you’re an automaton.

A separate question for you Don , and for you as well Voice of Reason,

Why should innocence have anything to do with it? Torture should not be used by anybody, especially not by a country such as America. Or do basic human rights not pertain to people we capture and hold without trial?

Note to Don: I said that I’d pause for the moment, but I feel that I should respond to one thing you said in post 7.

You made a reference to “your country that you continually rebuff”. Don, one of the two major political parties used to position itself as the Party of the Flag. After the last eight years, that won’t work any longer. Bush has made it impractical. Regrettably, you’ve lost a favorite ad hominem weapon.

For eight years, Bush routinely defecated on the Flag. If you support Bush, and torture, you’re the one who has “rebuffed” your country. You’ve spat on the Flag which reminds us of the principles that the country was founded on.

Note to Scott Chamness: I see your question, and it’s a sensible one. I’m going to go for a walk right now. I’ll respond a little later.

Hey, guys, nothing is simple. Obama is still prosecuting a war, and pictures as Carlos well knows are only part of the story, and can be quite inflammatory. Really glad some of you weren’t around during WWII.

Note to Ariel: You said, Hey, guys, nothing is simple. Obama is still prosecuting a war, and pictures as Carlos well knows are only part of the story, and can be quite inflammatory. Really glad some of you weren’t around during WWII.

1. As far as “prosecuting a war” goes, you know perfectly well that the so-called War on Terror will never be over. It’s straight out of the never-ending conflicts in “1984″. Therefore, unless you like the idea of a “1984″ world, that excuse is no longer valid.

2. Regarding the remark “Really glad some of you weren’t around during WWII”, see my World War II question in post 5. In fact, perhaps you’d care to answer the World War II question. From my perspective, if the torture apologists had been “around during WWII”, some of the German and Japanese war criminals would have walked.

Note to Ariel: I responded to your post 13, but I think my response is caught in the spam trap. If it doesn’t show up tomorrow, I’ll repost it.

Note to Scott Chamness: You said, Why should innocence have anything to do with it? Torture should not be used by anybody, especially not by a country such as America. Or do basic human rights not pertain to people we capture and hold without trial?

I see it as two different issues. The issue that you’ve raised is important. In fact, it’s more directly relevant to policy decisions, because nobody admits up front that they’re planning to torture innocent people, whether or not they believe that a “total information” methodology justifies it.

However, I believe that the issue I’ve raised, the torture of innocent people, is significant in its own right.

I’ll note that it’s at least possible to discuss the issue that you’ve raised. It isn’t possible to discuss the issue that I’ve raised. Bush apologist brains shut down completely. It’s pure cognitive dissonance. If you watch a Bush apologist closely, you can actually see the light of reason fade from his or her eyes when you talk about this issue.

I wasn’t kidding when I said in previous posts that I’d been spat upon (albeit accidentally) by a wild-eyed conservative when I brought this issue up. He shouted at me, “They were terrorists! Terrorists! They were captured ON THE BATTLEFIELD!” He was literally unable to comprehend the simple fact that this wasn’t true in a case I’d brought up.

I focus on the torture-of-innocents issue because it goes to the heart of the thing that makes us rational beings. I’m referring to our ability to perceive physical facts and to reason about the facts, as opposed to our tendency to react instinctively to phantoms and shadows, a tendency left over from the days when we huddled around small fires, wary of the things that prowled the night just beyond the reach of the light.

When you listen to a Bush apologist sputter and rage about 9/11! TERROR! 9/11! TERROR! and deny the simple physical reality of the things that were done, you’re dealing with one of the primitive creatures from our evolutionary past. They’re not buried at an archeological site or mounted in a museum. They’re right in front of you.

Note to interested readers:

Don said that he’s “done debating” me, though he never actually “debated” me to begin with. Therefore, I won’t address Don directly. However, I’ll comment on some relevant points.

Don added that I’m “ignorant” and that I’m not “capable of realizing the obvious”. I’m certainly “ignorant” about many things in life. Most of you have done things that I haven’t been able to do. However, I’m fairly good at detecting “obvious” things, as one or two people have learned to their dismay. I’ll try to address some of the “obvious” points that Don has raised here.

1. Don complained, “First of all, there is no blood on my hands… It’s insulting and ignorant for you to say such.”

Don is quoting post 5 on this thread. He didn’t read the post carefully. I never said that he has blood on his hands. I said that if the new terrorists he’s helped to create come back to “kill and/or maim” Americans (his words, not mine), he’ll have blood on his hands at that time. I stand by this assertion.

2. On a related note, Don hasn’t addressed the fact that he has helped to create new terrorists. It’s not surprising. Bush apologists rarely talk about this issue.

3. Don said, “you act like innocent victims were grabbed while minding their own business and shipped off to Gitmo”.

Well, yes. That’s the point. If the point wasn’t clear, perhaps I should have used Basic English.

Before I proceed, I’ll note that Don has oversimplified things. He’s talking about “Gitmo” by itself. I’m referring to Guantánamo Bay, to U.S. torture centers overseas, and to extraordinary rendition, the process by which prisoners are transferred to jurisdictions that technically aren’t under U.S. control for special procedures such as penis slicing.

4. I mentioned the use of bounties to Don twice. He was afraid to touch this issue. Bush apologists usually won’t go near it.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with the “bounties” issue, the U.S. dropped leaflets from planes asking people to turn “terrorists” in for money. This approach must have looked great on the whiteboard, but it didn’t work out very well in practice. Many people were perfectly happy to turn in business rivals or personal enemies and to get paid for the pleasure of doing so. It was an attractive deal: Get rid of somebody you don’t like, and get cash at the same time. Bounties resulted in some of the worst abuses of the Bush Wars.

5. Don added, “Those people are the worst of the worst. Let me give you a few examples.” After that, Don provided details about some “worst of the worst” cases. As Bush apologists tend to do, he missed the point.

There’s no doubt that some of the torture victims were guilty of something. There’s also no doubt that some of the people involved were “innocent victims”. When Don prattles on about people like Mullah Shahzada and Maulvi Ghafar, I honestly don’t know what his point is.

What do the “worst of the worst” cases have to do with Dilawar, a taxi driver who was beaten to death? He said the name of his God as he died. The soldiers who killed Dilawar laughed and struck him as he said it. If you’re curious about this case, go to Amazon and purchase the DVD “Taxi to the Dark Side”.

What do they have to do with Binyam Mohamed, rendered so that his penis could be sliced? I’ll add that Bush threatened to break the anti-terrorism arrangement between the U.S. and Britain if penis slicing was formally acknowledged to be one of the torture techniques used in this case. Obama has unambiguously reaffirmed the threat. This is disappointing.

What do they have to do with Maher Arar, an engineer who was rendered to Syria and subjected to advanced torture techniques there for the crime of buying inkjet cartridges from the wrong person?

What do they have to do with the cases where U.S. forces tortured their own local contacts and operatives due to shoddy record-keeping?

What do they have to do with the innocent 13-year-old who U.S. forces dragged naked through the desert to make his father “talk”, even though the father knew nothing at all? They showed the injured child to his father. The man was reportedly “very talkative” after that, even though he didn’t know anything. Therefore, the torture was “successful” in this case. However, imagine that you were the father. How would you feel about the U.S. afterwards? What would you try to do?

What do they have to do with the use of U.S. attack dogs (which everybody knows about) on 10-year-old children (which people apparently don’t know about) ?

What do they have to do with the more than 5,000 women who were raped while in U.S. custody?

What do they have to do with the boys who were sodomized both with objects and with genitals in a culture where that marks you for life? Incidentally, your Congressman has seen footage of rapes that you don’t know about. There was a lot of noise, because the boys who were raped screamed a lot. Their testicles were crushed.

What do they have to do with countless innocent people who were deprived of sleep to the point of psychosis, and who were forced into torture positions that produced intense pain, and that damaged organs in some cases?

On a related note, Mr. Kerzic once boasted that he’s tried one or more of Bush’s standard torture positions. I tried to be polite about this, though it’s pointless to be polite to Bush apologists. I asked him if he’d been forced to endure a torture position to the point of screaming pain. As I recall, he didn’t answer. Bush apologists never do.

I have endured lack of sleep to the point of psychosis. I have endured screaming pain that lasts for hours or days at a time. I’d like to advise people who haven’t been through both things that it isn’t like a “fraternity prank”, as some Republican commentators are fond of saying.

Incidentally, I’ve never understood the “fraternity prank” remark and similar remarks made by Bush apologists. If something isn’t torture, then how does it extract information?

I was uncomfortable with the notion of an eternal Hell for most of my life. It took the Bush administration, and the Bush apologists, to convince me that there should be a Hell, and that people exist who need to be there. It’s where the torture enthusiasts belong.

6. Don suggested, “Obama should declassify the documents Dick Cheney has requested”.

This makes sense to me. However, whether or not the documents in question “prove” that torture “worked” in a small number of cases, it’s a simple fact that innocent people were tortured.

The following note is simply a personal opinion. When I was young, I read about something known as the Unpardonable Sin. It’s a sin that’s eternal and that can’t be forgiven. The arrogance that’s required to say that it’s O.K. to torture innocent people as long as you catch some bad people fits one definition of the Unpardonable Sin. Therefore, I believe that Bush apologists are literally damned to Hell. As I said previously, this no longer strikes me as a bad thing.

7. Don said that I “continually rebuff” my country. I’ll repeat something that I said before: For eight years, Bush routinely defecated on the Flag. If you support Bush, and torture, you’re the one who has “rebuffed” your country. You’ve spat on the Flag which reminds us of the principles that the country was founded on.

It’s true that I do “rebuff” the Bush apologists. However, they aren’t my country. There’s such a thing as good, and there’s such a thing as evil. I’d like to believe that my country is good, and that evil will be dealt with appropriately.

8. Don claims that torture extracted “excellent information”. Actually, no. As I implied a few paragraphs back, the memos that Dick Cheney has requested may, or may not, “prove” that torture “worked” in a small number of cases. However, based on the information that’s available right now, Don’s claim appears to be complete and utter nonsense.

Additionally, whether or not torture “worked” in a small number of cases, the death penalty may still be called for in other cases where the Bush administration authorized the torture of innocent people and the torture resulted in serious injury or in death.

9. I asked Don a reasonable question related to World War II and Axis war criminals. Regrettably, he lacked the testosterone required to answer the question. On a side note, I’d like to ask Ariel the same question. It’s in post 5 on this thread.

10. Don brought up the laughable story of the “62 released detainees [who] have returned to terrorist activities and that does not include those who engage in propaganda”. I’ve written about this issue before. For the original post, click here.

The short version is that the often-cited “Oh no! Terrorists are back in business!” story is rubbish.

The U.S. constructed three lists related to Guantánamo Bay. The first list contained 61 people. That list was no more significant than the U.S. No-Fly list. It was essentially random. The second list contained 43 people. Most of these people had been tortured. The torture victims complained too publicly about the torture they’d received, so they went on the list.

The third and final list contained 18 people. It appears that some of the people on the third list, a tiny fraction of the people tortured by the U.S., were, in fact, involved subsequently in terror activities. However, totalling the numbers involved, the recidivism rate for Guantánamo Bay appears to be less than ten percent of the recidivism rate for normal U.S. prisoners. The startling ten percent ratio tends to confirm the assertion that the vast majority of the detainees were innocent to begin with.

11. Don stated that “there is no doubt in my mind that Bush has made the US a safer place”.

It’s my feeling that Bush made the U.S. several times less safe after 9/11. However, the part that’s relevant here is connected to a meeting that Bush had on or about August 6, 2001.

I reminded Don that Bush was warned about 9/11 five weeks before the attacks took place. Bush said: “All right. You’ve covered your ass, now. Get out of my office.” Don didn’t respond to this point. Bush apologists rarely do.

Sometimes it’s difficult to understand what might be going through a Bush apologist’s head. My guess is that the August 6, 2001 incident makes Bush apologists uncomfortable. If Bush was warned about 9/11, and if his response was to say “you’ve covered your ass”, that doesn’t go well with the official story that presents Bush as a heroic defender.

12. Don closed with, “Hopefully, President Obama will keep us all safe”.

Obama is fighting tooth and nail to protect the torturers. Additionally, as I mentioned previously, he’s reaffirmed the threat to break the anti-terrorism arrangement between Britain and the U.S. if penis slicing is formally acknowledged to be one of the torture techniques used. Therefore, it’s unlikely that he’s going to “keep us all safe”. We’re headed down the wrong path, and we’re likely to pay a price for it.

Of course they should be released. The argument that they will be used against us is a poor argument indeed. First, the use of the Abu G photos is sufficient if an individual needs that sort of incitement. Second, it is the acts, not the photos, that incites our enemies. Transparency is important as a principle, and we do not compromise our principles because it is inconvenient.

VOR,

Not the WOT but Afghanistan and Iraq. I’m still working on how you go to war against a tactic.

torgeaux,

So there is no need for Carlos to post videos or pictures of police over reach, he can simply describe the acts in words. It will save bandwidth.

You nailed it. We are funding this war. This is our war. So we have the right to see how our money is being spent.

That’s the sad thing about government. It’s not really our money. It’s confiscated and then referred to as “public funds,” when no member of the public has any say on what is done with them.

Looks like Obama has gotten in touch with his inner neocon.

So there is no need for Carlos to post videos or pictures of police over reach, he can simply describe the acts in words.

That would take at least a thousand.

xdamousex,

And my point was the visceral nature of photos or videos.

‘Twas a joke

Note to Ariel: You said, “Not the WOT but Afghanistan and Iraq. I’m still working on how you go to war against a tactic.”

1. The average person doesn’t see a distinction between the so-called “War on Terror” and “Afghanistan and Iraq”. Bush knew this, and counted on it. You know this, and you must have realized I’d point it out.

Bush conflated the two issues at every possible opportunity. Again and again, he suggested that “Saddam did 9/11″.

Bush implied that Iraq was connected to 9/11 right up until the end of his term. Do you remember the endless references to “Al-Quaeda in Iraq” ? It was a relentless drumbeat. How many Bush apologists understand that “Al-Quaeda in Iraq” didn’t exist in any meaningful sense until Bush invaded the country?

Try a simple experiment. Go to a typical Bush apologist. Speak to them casually. Say: “I’ve forgotten how many Iraqis were on the 9/11 planes. Do you happen to remember the number?” Even today, nearly a decade later, some of these people will insist that the planes must have been manned mostly by Iraqis, possibly with the assistance of Afghanis. If you tell a Bush apologist the truth, their eyes will glaze over.

For all intents and purposes, the Bush Wars are the War on Terror. To be more precise, the Bush Wars are the international side of the War on Terror. There’s a domestic side as well, of course. In the U.S., the War on Terror involves storage arrays that record phone conversations en masse, REAL ID, the Total Information Awareness program (which has not been shut down), the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, and other measures. These measures are drastic, but they’re intended solely to protect us from the legions of determined and resourceful “terrorists” who are lurking everywhere these days. If somebody says otherwise, they’re a “terrorist” sympathizer.

My original point stands. Bush started an eternal conflict that’s exactly like the one in “1984″. No, the “terrorists” didn’t start it. The governments that Bush attacked had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush started it, and Obama’s going to continue it. Therefore, unless you’re comfortable with a “1984″ world, a world in which unwavering obedience is required because “we’re at war”, the point that you made (Obama is still prosecuting a war) goes out the window. He doesn’t get to use that excuse.

2. The “tactic” you’ve referred to is an artificial concept. The word “terrorism” has become a catch-all. The word is meaningless. It means anything that people want it to mean.

On the domestic front, U.S. state governments have declared that “talking about the Constitution”, “policing the police”, and backing the wrong Presidential candidates are signs that somebody is a “terrorist”.

On the international front, torture victims who complain too publicly about torture go back onto “terrorist” lists. If a group carries out pro-U.S. assassinations, they’re called “freedom fighters”. If a group carries out anti-U.S. assassinations, they’re called “terrorists”. One man’s “terrorism” is another man’s “Red Dawn”.

I’m sick and tired of 9/11! TERROR! 9/11! TERROR! being used as the modern-day Open Sesame, the magic ticket that allows governments to do whatever they want to do without accountability. F*** the notion of “terrorism”.

Many might think that the worst of the photos have already been released (by the media) so you might as well be honest about things. But remember, for every rat you see there’s at least 50 hiding under the woodwork. If we don’t draw the line somewhere, how can we pretend to be better then our “enemy”? Here is some of what #18 is refering to.

http://www.aztlan.net/iraqi_women_raped.htm

Is anyone going to argue that these aren’t legit?
“Maybe the officers didn’t know what was going on, but everybody else did. I have seen literally hundreds of these types of pictures.” Many of the pictures was destroyed last September when the luggage of soldiers was searched as they left Iraq.”

“He said he had seen all the Abu Ghraib pictures. He said, ‘You haven’t begun to see evil…’ then trailed off. He said, ‘horrible things done to children of women prisoners, as the cameras run.’ ”

http://bbvm.wordpress.com/2009/02/28/hersh-children-sodomized-at-abu-ghr...

Anon,

The photos from the Aztlan site are not real. They were lifted from a porn site. Those photos have been debunked numerous times over the years.

This is exactly why the government needs to release the photos because otherwise, people are going to release fake photos and claim they are real.

Note to Carlos Miller: You said, “This is exactly why the government needs to release the photos because otherwise, people are going to release fake photos and claim they are real.”

Correction: This is one of the reasons that the government needs to release the photos. It’s not the only issue. As you’re aware, there are other reasons that are equally important.

Sorry Carlos I missed the debunking. That’s the problem with these types of allegations, and why Obama needs to tell us the truth.

Note to Anonymous and Carlos Miller: Let’s be clear about something. The specific photos that you’re discussing have been debunked. The rapes themselves are something else entirely. In fact, the 5,000-rapes estimate that I mentioned may be less than half the actual number.

I agree and that’s why he should just tell the truth. 1) All torture and abuse needs to stop 2) The troops are already in danger; they’ll be in more danger if this continues. 3) misinformation, innuendos, half truths or outright lies serve no one and accomplish nothing in the long run.

It’s not gonna happen though. Hearing the truth would rock the boat and mess with our perceptions of how we (not to mention the rest of the world) see our country.

This is an old thread. Therefore, nobody will see this post after it scrolls off the Recent Comments panel. This is regrettable. The issue is important, and it’s related to some of this web site’s central themes; for example, suppression of photographic evidence of crimes. If Mr. Miller’s Internet access is working again, I urge him to consider doing more posts on this subject as new facts come to light.

This particular post is here to point out that we knew what was in the suppressed Rumsfeld torture photographs several years ago, and that the specifics have been confirmed over the past week or two. I’d like to talk briefly about the specifics.

Before I proceed, I’ll make a preliminary observation. In the past, I would have advised people that the subject matter isn’t suitable for children. I feel differently today. If you believe that it’s O.K. to rape men, women, and children, and both Bush and Obama supporters appear to be enthusiastic supporters of this kind of thing, then why should you hide something that you support from your own children? Let them see the things that you support. Tell them that you’re proud of your feelings. Encourage them to follow in your footsteps.

Some of the photographs show a male translator raping a 15-year-old boy. The translator has still got his uniform on, but he’s busy inserting his penis into the boy. The boy isn’t pleased with the procedure. Actually, he’s screaming. Obama refers to the boy’s rape as being nothing new or significant. Thanks for the leadership and “change”, Mr. President. You’ve restored my faith in the political process.

The photos show rapes of adults, both men and women, that are more creative than the boy’s rape. Apparently, Rumsfeld’s people felt that the old-fashioned approach wasn’t effective enough. The rapes of the adults include penetration with a rubber implement of some kind and something that appears to be a fluorescent light. The light isn’t glowing, so at least they didn’t plug it in.

I’ve alluded to institutionalized rapes with objects in previous posts and, in fact, Bush fought hard for a obscure law that explicitly permitted these rapes. However, the photos show things that go beyond the rapes that were performed as standard operating procedure. It appears that Rumseld’s people raped individuals, in some cases, simply because they were bored and they had the opportunity to stick random objects into buttocks or vaginas. Your trillion dollars at work.

There’s plenty of interesting things in the photos besides rapes. Would you like to see Rumsfeld’s people ripping clothes off Iraqi women to expose their breasts? There’s plenty of that. There’s other things, too. Republicans refer to these things as “fraternity pranks”. I refer to them as war crimes.

There’s also a few “snuff” photos. The photos in question show U.S. soldiers flashing the thumbs-up sign while standing next to Iraqis that they’ve just murdered. We’ve known about the “snuff” photos for years, but the subject seems to make people uncomfortable. Nobody talks about how uncomfortable the murder victims must have been while they were dying.

By the way, your Congressman saw these photos years ago. I assume that he or she never told you about the details. The next time that you’re at a town-hall meeting, ask him or her why he or she hasn’t done anything about the issue.

To be fair, when they showed the photos to your Congressman, they proceeded at a rapid pace, skipping over the less-pleasant shots as rapidly as possibly. They mixed in some nice landscape shots. Pictures of Baghdad buildings and so on. They even added pictures of consensual G.I. sex. I suppose that the landscape pictures and the consensual sex shots were supposed to dilute the pictures of rapes and murders. Apparently, it worked. In my opinion, it doesn’t say much for your Congressman’s attention span.

Naturally, Bush (and now, Obama) supporters will say that Rumseld didn’t “order” these particular rapes and abuses. If that’s true, so what? The culture of torture and abuse came down from the top. Torture and abuse was planned from the beginning, permitted, encouraged, photographed, filmed on video, and covered up.

The cover-up part is important. The existence of the people who fought to cover up these events proves, by itself, that something is seriously wrong. This isn’t the work of a “few bad apples”. It’s something that was institutionalized.

If you supported Bush, or if you support Obama now, it’s something that you have fought to cover up. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. If you’ve got nothing to be ashamed of, tell your children what you’ve done, and tell them that you’re proud of it.

Some Bush (and Obama) apologists might demand that I “prove” the things I’ve said. I’ve got a simple response:

Release the photos. All of the photos. Even the photos that show rapes and possibly murders. No filtering out the photos that you’d rather not discuss. Then we’ll talk about “proof”.

The anti-spam filter appears to be acting up again.

Please don’t release any more of those terrorists. Keep them locked up.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/26/gitmo.recidivism/index.html#cnnSTCText?...

You are so full of shit. Why don’t you move to one of these countries and that way you can experience first hand their culture. People like you aren’t wanted here. Go…Please.