There's a new batch of photos from Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, and these are reportedly far worse than the sickening originals. Naturally, the Pentagon is trying to block their release.

The ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in October 2003 to make public 87 photographs and four videos depicting prisoner abuse in Iraq. The Pentagon originally argued that releasing the images would violate the Geneva Convention rights of the detainees; a supreme irony considering that the US originally denied these very prisoners Geneva Convention protections. The ACLU agreed that the Pentagon could black out "identifying characteristics," but a federal judge in New York ruled last week that DoD must explain publicly why it's concealing the images. "By and large, I ruled for public disclosure," said US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein. A final ruling is expected on August 30.

In court proceedings, General Richard Myers argued that releasing the pictures and videos would give aid to the enemy: boosting Al Qaeda recruitment, destabilizing governments in Iraq and Afghanistan and inciting riots throughout the Muslim world. But a number of high-ranking officers and civil libertarians countered by noting that much of what Myers predicts is already occurring on the ground, fueled in large measure by past and present US behavior. "The attacks will continue regardless of whether the photos and tapes are released," testified former US Army Colonel Michael Pheneger. Myers, he said, "mistakes propaganda for motivation."

Last May members of Congress sat in a dark room and viewed the images. Their responses begged for further elaboration. "It was disgusting," said Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson. "There were new ones that we hadn't seen before, and they're bad. I mean there's no doubt about that." Bad enough to show to Congress apparently, but not the American people.

The NewsHour's Ray Suarez said the images reportedly depict "assault, coerced sexual activity, rape, even dead bodies." Some may have originated outside of Abu Ghraib. Rep. Jane Harman said she saw videos of a prisoner banging his head against a wall and a group of men masturbating. "Some of the videos are more disturbing than the still photos that you've seen," added Sen. Bill Nelson.

Far from endangering American national security, the release of the horrific images could provide new impetus to the stalled Congressional investigations into prisoner abuse, and the Pentagon's failure to hold any high-ranking officers accountable for Abu Ghraib. An independent counsel with subpoena power is what's needed most right now to prevent images like these in the future.

Comments (86)

1. What can be said? Who among us is most afraid to learn of the monster we've unleashed upon the world?

   Posted by Delmark.G at 08/22/2005 @ 10:23am

2. I am undecided on this issue. I see the merits of both sides' arguments. However, I lean towards siding with the pentagon simply because I don't want to see the situation turn into a lurid freakshow. I mean, if one missing girl in Aruba can incite a Summer-long media circus then I hesitate to think what these ghastly images will conjure up.

   Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/22/2005 @ 11:16am

3. Don't you want to know how your tax dollars are spent?

   Posted by Delmark.G at 08/22/2005 @ 11:21am

4. Totally unsurprising that the Pentagon is now trying to hide behind the Geneva Conventions when it it cast them aside earlier. Tends to be this admin's pattern: pay attention to the rules only when they are convenient.

   Posted by leftofcenter at 08/22/2005 @ 11:45am

5. Ari Bergman - The Pentagon originally argued that releasing the images would violate the Geneva Convention rights of the detainees; a supreme irony considering that the US originally denied these very prisoners Geneva Convention protections.

   Ari - Thank you for pointing out the 'mother' of all Catch-22 statements by the U.S. Defense Department.

   First the Pentagon and our present U.S. Attorney General argue that these people do not have any Geneva Convention rights, but now the same people argue that we can't show you these pictures from Abu Ghraib because that would violate the Geneva Convention rights of the detainees.

   My response to the Pentagon's reasoning is a paraphrased quote by Henry VIII, from the movie "A Man for All Seasons": "Do you take me for an imbecile?".

   Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/22/2005 @ 11:54am

6. Physics,

   "Totally unsurprising that the Pentagon is now trying to hide behind the Geneva Conventions when it it cast them aside earlier. Tends to be this admin's pattern: pay attention to the rules only when they are convenient."

   Couldn't agree with you more here, extremely hypocritical of the administration. I can think of times when Bush did the same thing with the U.N. either they are "irrelevant" as he himself has called them or they have merit and are legitimate. You can't have it both ways. In my opinion it's the former, not the latter.

   Todd

   Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/22/2005 @ 11:54am

7. ILP,

   I see your point. I can't help but think that these photos & this story may disappear just as fast as the other one did. The stories are only as hot as the news media want them to be really. Once the government places a bit of heat on them they'll fold like a piece of paper & it will be all but forgotten. Except in places like The Nation, of course.

   Posted by thejman at 08/22/2005 @ 11:58am

8. This is a double edged sword.

   I concede the hypocrisy that is taking place.

   On the other hand, if they are released and it causes rioting and possibly many deaths, would it have been worth it?

   Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/22/2005 @ 12:08pm

9. This type of behavoir was so widespread we better jump start the investigation or we will loose what credibility we have left with anyone here or overseas. What this administration has done to our standing in the world is unreal.

   Posted by Salunga at 08/22/2005 @ 12:10pm

10. Boy, the neocons have no problem violating laws, kidnapping and torturing, starting unjustified wars of choice based upon lies, raping and pillaging America with the most vicious attacks ever seen in my lifetime against health care, the poor, the hungry, Social Security, etc., BUT if you want to show the world the pictures of what their Machiavellian leadership and policies have wrought they cower like the cowards they are and seek to prevent the light of day exposing their wickedness (and not to be pollyannish, I do think torturing people is wicked, by any decent standards - like the standards neocons love to ignore).

    Posted by Bill Arnett at 08/22/2005 @ 12:22pm

11. Reminds me of Rush Limbaugh running to the ACLU. Its all good when it suits you. These guys are true scum.

    Posted by Salunga at 08/22/2005 @ 12:33pm

12. BILL ARNETT: Your post is a bit over the top, wouldn't you say?

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/22/2005 @ 12:33pm

13. Gee. The release of the information might cause more violence.

    I'm thinking... maybe... we shouldn't oughta done the things that were photographed in the first place...?

    Perhaps some people are thinking along parallel lines, "Gee, if those photos are released, *I* might go to prison!"

    The Iraqis pretty much already know what happened to their family members in US custody and if you don't think that it has influenced their opinions of us, change the channel away from FOX. Maybe it's time that those who financed it get to see what their taxes are supporting so they can make better decisions on election day.

    If you aren't prepared to deal with the consequences of breaking the law, then don't break the law. Display a little of that "personal responsibility" with which we are always being beaten about the head.

    Posted by slinkytwf at 08/22/2005 @ 12:39pm

14. Didn't Rushbo describe these actvities as "nothing more than college pranks"? How else will anyone learn how far he is from being a truth barometer?

    Posted by Delmark.G at 08/22/2005 @ 12:44pm

15. USAPRIDE - BILL ARNETT: Your post is a bit over the top, wouldn't you say?

    Posted by USAPRIDE 08/22/2005 @ 12:33am

    The post by Bill Arnett was not over the top, but the lies about WMD and imminent threat were over the top, and deadly.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/22/2005 @ 12:47pm

16. Whenever I hear people say that the things done to the prisoners at Abu Graib are not torture, I always ask them to endure the same experiences and then let me know if their opinion is still the same...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/22/2005 @ 12:49pm

17. The photos and videos should be made public. We, the people, cannot be accountable for what our White House and military do if we do not know what it is. The information must be made public, and we, the people, must act appropriately based on what we see.

    Posted by Zero at 08/22/2005 @ 12:56pm

18. This is not about George Bush or Bill Clinton or political parties or right or left or fictional legal loopholes in treaties or any of that. This issue is about the basic crediblity of the American nation as a light of decency in the world. It doesn't matter who is president in a case of insitutionalized prisoner abuse and torture; the American nation must demonstrate that it's accountability for what we are hearing has transpired. The photos and videos must be made public.

    Posted by Zero at 08/22/2005 @ 12:59pm

19. Zero...Amen. It is NO wonder that we can't travel abroad without substantial fear. We are portraying ourselves as savages. I have heard from the right from Dubya on down) that they don't care what the rest of the world thinks of us. However, our actions speak for us and our reputation, our honor (or lack thereof) is what others judge us on...as we do to them. Duh

    Posted by leftofcenter at 08/22/2005 @ 1:06pm

20. Zero - This is not about George Bush or Bill Clinton or political parties or right or left or fictional legal loopholes in treaties or any of that. This issue is about the basic crediblity of the American nation as a light of decency in the world. It doesn't matter who is president in a case of insitutionalized prisoner abuse and torture; the American nation must demonstrate that it's accountability for what we are hearing has transpired. The photos and videos must be made public.

    Posted by ZERO 08/22/2005 @ 12:59am

    Zero - You are so correct in your statement quote above. And, that is why a "Nuremberg"-style investigation of the Iraq War is needed. The nation needs to know for certain if there were any "high crimes or misdemeanors" committed in the effort to sell the need for war in Iraq to the American people.

    Why were the American people told that Iraq had WMD and that Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S.? This question and many others like it need to be answered to the satisfaction of all Americans, not just to the satisfaction of the Bush zealots.

    If we don't have an honest and thorough look at our own behavior and reasons for going to war in Iraq, then we can no longer expect other nation's people to see us as the "shining" beacon on the hill; the U.S. will be considered just another parasitic nation that does not live up to its ideals, especially those put forth in The Declaration of Independece.

    We've been down the road of not living up to our ideals before; it was called slavery.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/22/2005 @ 1:18pm

21. One day, and perhaps a day so far into the future it won't matter anymore, the light will shine on this administration and this war. Hopefully the following generations will be able to forgive us.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 08/22/2005 @ 1:41pm

22. Uh, excuse me, but this is about George Bush, the commander in chief, who holds ultimate responsibility for all actions committed under his command.

    Posted by nathanhale at 08/22/2005 @ 1:41pm

23. NATHANHALE - Uh, excuse me, but this is about George Bush, the commander in chief, who holds ultimate responsibility for all actions committed under his command.

    Posted by NATHANHALE 08/22/2005 @ 1:41pm

    NH - I have to disagree with you as to the ultimate responsibility for America's actions. Because we have a Republican-form of government, whereby we elect our representatives, then we are responsible for their actions.

    It is like the old adage that we used in the military; "you can delegate authority, but you can't delegate responsibility". We delegate authority, through elections, to our elected representatives to take action on our behalf; but the responsibility for their actions remains with the American people. In a democratic and Republican-form of government, the people cannot place responsibility for their nation's actions on the elected officials who carry out those actions; whereas in a dictatorship or kingship, where the people do not elect their leadship you could have separation of responsibility from the people.

    The American people, under our Constitution, are the delegators of power to the duly elected representatives of the people. Some people seem to have forgotten that fact.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/22/2005 @ 2:07pm

24. Another Catch-22

    In addition to the delicious paradox about the Geneva Convention (showing photos of rights being violated would violate rights), there's another contradiction the neocon argument encounters here. To wit:

    1) In the run up to the Iraq war as well as since, neocons have argued that our actions will not generate antipathy to us, since the terrorists hate us anyway.

    2) But now we're told that we can't release the photos, because that would inflame the Muslim world.

    So why is it that when, say, we say that Iraq war has inflamed world opinion and made it a more dangerous place, we're told 'they' hate us anyway--but if you want to release photos, we are supposed to worry that it'll make them hate us?

    It is a specious argument to say that nothing we do matters. What we do matters. There may be a small number of people who hate America no matter what, but they draw strength from the support of people whose impression of us depends on what we do.

    Posted by JohnRandolph at 08/22/2005 @ 2:22pm

25. OraiB, Bush is commander in chief of the U.S armed forces, with ultimate responsibility for the actions of the military.

    Posted by nathanhale at 08/22/2005 @ 2:30pm

26. Leftofcenter wrote:

    "Totally unsurprising that the Pentagon is now trying to hide behind the Geneva Conventions when it it cast them aside earlier. Tends to be this admin's pattern: pay attention to the rules only when they are convenient"

    Exploit law that benefits your client and ignore law that does not. The Pentagon is only acting the way all good lawyers do. Where's Bush admonishing lawyers now?

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/22/2005 @ 3:36pm

27. May God forgive us all for allowing this administration to continue it's lies and abuses of power. Our standing in this world will never be the same...and unless we all take responsibility and take steps to right this awful wrong and the numerous other crimes of this administration, we should not be suprised that we are hated, and every terrorist alive is planning our demise.

    Posted by tebeth at 08/22/2005 @ 3:36pm

28. Nathan...I would counter that the ultimate responsibility is ours. If our leaders do things so reprehensible that it is illegal (although after the Clinton witch hunts, I suppose immoral too) It is the peoples prerogative to see htat they are removed....

    Posted by leftofcenter at 08/22/2005 @ 3:46pm

29. Bush is the commander-in-chief of the military. The buck stops with him. I support my troops by paying my taxes. I have never told any of the soldiers I know personally that they are doing something wrong by supporting the Iraq war. I wish them well and tell them I hope they make it home safely. But I can disagree with their boss about his motives for going to war, and the methods of warfare he allows under his leadership. It's important to do so, as a citizen, because the soldiers are not allowed to do so while they are serving.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/22/2005 @ 3:51pm

30. I think nathanhale's point is that he voted for Bush's opponents. Nathanhale and many like him (including myself) on this issue have done what we can to change the course of events our military has been engaged in, is engaged in, and will continue to be engaged in.

    Bush didn't win 100% of the vote. He won slightly more than 50%; a majority yes, but not an overwhelming majority and his actions in office certainly do not represent conformity of agreement with the U.S. population.

    The rest of the world may or may not look at the entire U.S. population as in lockstep with the current administration, it's hard to tell. But I do think the war issue should be used a springboard to election reform, especially in the realm of popular vote v. electoral vote.

    To death with the electoral college! It's time to count every vote.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/22/2005 @ 3:59pm

31. I want to see what's being done in my name. Especially since I as US citizen am going to be tarred by it.

    Posted by wgilwood at 08/22/2005 @ 4:05pm

32. TEBETH: "for allowing this administration to continue..."

    What is it exactly that you could have, or can do? Call your local and federal politicians and demand Bush's removal, stage a protest, scream and yell on the street corner making a spectacle of yourself? None of these work in my opinion.

    The nation voted and these are the results we all have to live with. I didn't like or respect Clinton, but I supported him because he was the president. I don't expect the same from you regarding Bush, only telling you how I see it.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/22/2005 @ 4:10pm

33. USAPRIDE, You supported Clinton because he was the president, even though you didn't like him? Would you please explain that philosophy to me? I don't understand it. To me, if the president is making a mess of things he shouln't be supported in that endeavor.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/22/2005 @ 4:24pm

34. As citizens, we should all take a good look at these photos and images, no matter how gruesome. Rather than hearing talking heads babbling about the "quaintness" of the Geneva Conventions, discussing "collateral damage," or "precise weaponry," we should see what happens when policy directives are put into play. Along with Abu Ghraib, Americans should look at images of the physical destruction we caused in Iraq and to its people, injured U.S. soldiers, and caskets of U.S. serviceman. Perhaps seeing these images will temper our cowboy attitude and the blank checks we as a society give our leaders to wage unnecessary wars. It certainly is easier supporting a policy when you are shielded from seeing the reality of its effects.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/22/2005 @ 4:26pm

35. JohnRandolph,

    Re: Another Catch-22

    Damn fine point about the "hatred" thing. If the Islamites already hate us, then showing the Abu Ghraib photos won't change their attitude toward us.

    Conversely, releasing and showing the pictures from Abu Ghraib's house of horrors will influence the attitudes of the American people. I suspect that the attitudes of the American people are what the Bush Pentagon and Bush are really worried about.

    Suggestion: When talking about the Pentagon or DOD, we should always ensure that it is known as Bush's Pentagon/DOD; it is Bush who is really in charge - he is the war president.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/22/2005 @ 4:45pm

36. NH,

    NH - OraiB, Bush is commander in chief of the U.S armed forces, with ultimate responsibility for the actions of the military.

    Posted by NATHANHALE 08/22/2005 @ 2:30pm

    On a narrow basis,I agree with your position as quoted above.

    However, it is the American people who have ultimate responsibility for the actions of its elected officials, including the 'elected' president and how he uses the American military; not the president's military.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/22/2005 @ 4:50pm

37. USA pride--"What is it exactly that you could have, or can do?

    I do not believe in supporting a president who lies, cheats and pretends to be on the "side of good" while committing atrocities on a daily basis. I do not know that standing on a street corner in support of Cindy Sheehan did any good, but I also don't believe that torturing prisoners and then lying about it did much good for this country...and once upon a time-protest marches were shown on t.v. along with images of the war in Vietnam---eventually the war ended because we withdrew from Vietnam; not because we won the war. When we all become galvanized enough to act, whether through images of abuse of prisoners or the grief of a mother, then we are powerful beyond measure. Do not underestimate what a little publicity can do, especially when it comes to injustices and atrocities. By acting on what our heart tells us to do, maybe, just maybe we can begin to know peace. Giving up and believing we are powerless is just what this administration would love for us to do.

    Posted by tebeth at 08/22/2005 @ 5:35pm

38. If we, the people, don't accept accountability for the Abu Ghraib abuses, then we are in denial of our civic responsibility to our government. The photos and videos must be released. We, the people must endure the despair of looking at what has been done with our military, using our money, with a manufacturing of our consent based on huge lies.

    The impact of these photos and videos would probably have sufficient impact on the general American awareness to produce broad support for acts of accountability, such as removing figures holding major responsiblity for the acts depicted in the photos and videos from power and never writing a blank check to run extra-judicial torture camps and a gulag system ever again.

    Posted by Zero at 08/22/2005 @ 6:44pm

39. Grr. "These photos ... would have sufficient impact."

    I hate trying to edit in these little boxes.

    Posted by Zero at 08/22/2005 @ 6:45pm

40. How about a new federal law specifically prohibiting extra-legal torture camps and a gulag system from ever being built? Specifically prohibiting turning captives over to foreign governments for torture? Specifically prohibiting allowing captives from being tortures, regardless of manner of capture?

    Posted by Zero at 08/22/2005 @ 6:47pm

41. Zero,

    The impact of these photos and videos would probably have sufficient impact on the general American awareness to produce broad support for acts of accountability, such as removing figures holding major responsiblity for the acts depicted in the photos and videos from power and never writing a blank check to run extra-judicial torture camps and a gulag system ever again.

    Posted by ZERO 08/22/2005 @ 6:44pm

    I sure hope you are right about the demand for accountability. It was the failure of the people of other totalitarian governments that caused the U.S. and others to demand trials at The Hague.

    If we don't wish for our political leaders to be judged at The Hague, and they can be adjudicated in absentia then we better damn well hold them accountable. I'm not saying that any Bush Administration people will be judged at The Hague, or apparently anywhere else including the United States.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/22/2005 @ 7:05pm

42. I will be the lone conservative voice here and comment, regardless of the petty personal attacks that will no doubt come my way. Many here have commented on the "delicious paradox", one wonders why is it so delicious? No matter detainees regardless of where they were picked up have always been accorded a CERTAIN status under the Geneva convention in so far as they have access to food, water, shower, religous practice and protection from the elements. (Which I doubt can be said for PFC Jeremey Maupin, the lone MIA and presumed murdered by the savages so many here wish to defend) YES I know Abu Graib was bad when it happend. And dont worry many an officers' career was ended that day to include a one star, col, LTC, CPT, LT and well as several senior NCOs, and many have been convicted and sent to jail. I know, you want Bush and Rummy to fall got it. Please spare me the moral eqiuvlancy arguments for a moment. No doubt there have been at last count 27-30 out of the over 50000 we hold in Afghan and Iraq who have died under mysterious circumstances, which are being investigated. One such person is the Iraqi general who no doubt was beaten to death by US Army Soldiers. But it is worth noting that this Iraqi general, whose name escapes me, was in charge when the the 57th Trans Company was captured, and videotape confirmed this. The same Iraqi general ordered the execution of 7 US Soldiers, we know this because when we found them they had close range shots to the head, to inlcude Lori Pestiwana. Surely this is eye for eye stuff and illegal. The nature of war is not pretty many here seem to delight at our setbacks, many of which are overblown, which leads to the question of why do you need to see these photos? Why do they need to be made public for all to see? We know what happened, largely due to the Taguba report, why put more people in danger? Forget US soldiers, which liberals always seem to be uneasy with, we are not in danger from these photos, as a whole. But think what response this would cause? Look what happened to the people who rioted from a FALSE Newsweek report over the Koran. US Soldiers are well armed and WILL defend themselves if attacked, regardless if the jihadists use children and other civilians as shields as they like to do. Is it that important to you? Does your visceral hatred of Bush blind you to that? You want to see more people caught in the crossfire just so you can say haha?

    Posted by CPT at 08/22/2005 @ 7:17pm

43. CPT, And if those personal attacks do come your way, don't forget that you initiated them:

    Does your visceral hatred of Bush blind you to that? You want to see more people caught in the crossfire just so you can say haha?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/22/2005 @ 7:47pm

44. New wallpaper, I,m excited! If the ACLU is successful the Army may be forced to conduct a real investigation. The ACLU sure knows how to srew-up a good time. It looks like the POTUS will be handing out more medals of freedom.

    Posted by JOHN P BOYCE at 08/22/2005 @ 8:05pm

45. Physics,

    CPT's post reminded me of a Bush speech; void of any coherent points other than stay the course.

    Well I'm not a lemming and do not plan to stay the course when the course is taking me over the cliff.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/22/2005 @ 8:18pm

46. As happens so many times here at the Nation, Mr. Berman and the liberal bloggers here are WRONG again on the facts.

    The administration has NEVER said that the prisoners at Abu Ghraib were not covered under the Geneva Convention. Mr. Berman and the rest who have made the false accusation are confusing Abu Ghraib with Guantanamo.

    Therefore the Pentagon is taking the correct stance on this issue.

    Gonzales told NBC News on Monday night that there was no evidence linking his determination on al-Qaida detainees to the abuse in Iraq, where, he said, the Geneva Conventions protections are supposed to apply.

    White House press secretary Scott McClellan concurred, telling reporters that the memo "related specifically to al-Qaida and the Taliban. It did not reference Iraq at all. We have made it clear that we are bound by the Geneva Conventions in Iraq."

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4855930/

    Of course since the following does not come from someone on the left it has no credibility but here is some truth reporting:

    "The authorization I issued was that anything we did would conform to U.S. law and would be consistent with international treaty obligations," Bush told reporters.

    Bush said he could not remember whether he saw the report but reiterated he had instructed that the treatment of terror suspects stay within U.S. and international laws.

    Bush was asked, "If you knew a person was in U.S. custody and had specific information about an imminent terrorist attack that could kill hundreds or even thousands of Americans, would you authorize the use of any means necessary to get that information and to save those lives?"

    "What I've authorized is that we stay within U.S. law," Bush responded.

    Leading up to the Iraq war, Bush said Iraqi prisoners would be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. Rumsfeld said last month that Bush had made that instruction clear.

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/21/rumsfeld.interrogation.memos/

    There are some on the left who post on this site who could care less if the facts don't back up their hate filled commentary. I actually think that some of you get your kicks from trying to see who can be more outrageous in the level of vitriol, and the facts be damned!

    At least ILP sounded a note of caution, a trait some of you have no acquaintance with, much less a working knowledge.

    One further note, I was subjected to many of the same stuff as the Abu Ghraib prisoners in the normal course of military initiations (not authorized by the military but conducted by enlisted personnel). My attitude has been so what! When we start sawing peoples heads off slowly so they suffer even more, then we have a reason for getting upset.

    Most of you are just pansies who wimp out about war and doing what it takes to win. See how long your attitudes would keep you alive in many of the Arab countries. I have a friend who is teaching english right now in an Arab country and it is too dangerous for him to chat in more than very simple, non political or non religious subjects via email. Another friend who is a pastor in Pakistan must call me and say no more than to call his son in Denver for details when he needs to pass on info to me. Last year the Muslims killed two of his nephews for the crime of being Christian.

    So, I get far angrier at the pathetic dialogue I see in a thread like this one, than the photos from Abu Ghraib (wow, now I know how Aludra feels).

    Posted by love liberty at 08/22/2005 @ 8:36pm

47. It's not as if the Iraqis don't already know what is being done to them at places like Abu Ghraib. In fact, it seems everyone knows except the American public. As for their incendiary nature, these images will not likely inflame the Muslim world near as much as the callous commentaries of Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough, Sean Hannity, etc. The reason these images are being kept from publication isn't because of the reaction of the insurgents in Iraq or the Muslim world in general but because of the reaction from the American people.

    Posted by Ian McGarrett at 08/22/2005 @ 8:39pm

48. ORAIBI1952..very predictable response, so convinced of your own rightness that you disregard those who dare to think differently from you. You are free to do so...well I am not like you, thankfully, I chose not to live by the HEADLINE of the day. Having lived it day in and day out, one is left with this unmistakable FACT..there is much more being done, for the better, than is reported.

    Posted by CPT at 08/22/2005 @ 8:48pm

49. CPT,

    It isn't so much that I'm convinced of my rightness; its more that I'm convinced of Bush's wrongness about going to war in Iraq.

    It's the lies and suppression of the truth by the Bush people that gives me that certainty of the wrongness of the Bush Iraq War policy.

    In the end, Bush will declare our job over as soon as a 'constitution' is presented for an Iraqi plebiscite. Just today, at the VFW annual meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah, Bush talks about having laid a foundation for democracy in Iraq and the middle east.

    Well, I'm sure we have laid a foundation for something, but it doesn't appear to be democracy. Moreover, I don't consider uncritical support of suzerainties in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc. as laying a foundation for democracy.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/22/2005 @ 9:27pm

50. LL's pissed, and for my own safety, even though he's nearly twice my age, I wouldn't want to be within 10 square city blocks of him right now.

    (LL, in case you haven't surmised as such, that was a compliment.)

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/22/2005 @ 9:31pm

51. Freiheit,

    The pictures could be from Bush's last party before he became a born-again Christian or from former Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski's party in Italy.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/22/2005 @ 9:34pm

52. LL - Leading up to the Iraq war, Bush said Iraqi prisoners would be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. Rumsfeld said last month that Bush had made that instruction clear.

    Well, I think Bush's statement, referred to in the above quote by LL, was made inoperable by the treatment of the prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison. Maybe those incarcerated at Abu Ghraib weren't Iraqi prisoners.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/22/2005 @ 9:42pm

53. KC,

    Thanks, I got it and chuckled immediately (in fact for several minutes). Hope you are not hung over today!

    I have been feeling a little fiery today. I watched a brave Marine on CNN today whose arm was nearly lost due to an IED. All he could talk about was his pride of serving over there in Iraq. The love affair with the Iraqi people (especially the children), his great admiration and support for the president, and most of all, his eagerness to get back over there and continue the mission.

    Hearing that not only made me proud, reinforced my absolute belief in what we are doing, but just angered me towards all those who are so vitriolic against the president, the war, and those of us who support the president in this effort.

    I just try and remember:

    Illegitimi Non Carborundum

    Posted by love liberty at 08/22/2005 @ 10:28pm

54. Nonsense OR, that's why people have been tried and convicted for what they did at Abu Ghraib.

    Posted by love liberty at 08/22/2005 @ 10:29pm

55. LL,

    Not all the people have been adjudicated; especially the decision makers who set things in motion at Abu Ghraib.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/22/2005 @ 10:33pm

56. OR,

    You are right in that it is still an ongoing investigation. However, I think you are by reading your posts, insuating that Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney should be in that also.

    Which of course I disagree with and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Many have tried to find something, but they fail unless they resort to inuendo ala a Greg Palast or Sy Hersh (remember the "June invasion of Iran" this year that Hersh, Norman Solomon, and Scott Ritter promised? The Bush evidence is in the same place....nowhere.

    Of course I go out on a limb consistent with my earlier posting. I would have done that and more if I thought it could save US, coalition and Iraqi lives.

    Posted by love liberty at 08/22/2005 @ 10:41pm

57. LL,

    What is it that you would have done?

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/22/2005 @ 10:44pm

58. comments:

    I don't recall the administration ever saying those held at Abu Ghraib were not lawful combatants. Maybe I missed it.

    I recall that for the detainees at Guantanamo bay.

    Maybe I just missed it, it has been a while.

    However, I don't get paid to write this stuff. I would expect those who do to be on top of these things.

    Second observation:

    What kind of idiot would actually make pictures of this stuff? It is incredibly stupid, or worse, is the work of very disgruntled servicemen who are wilfully trying to embarass the administration.

    Third

    While I prefer mercy to justice, I think the perpetrators of this should be severely punished. Right up to however high it goes. I hope that that has been done, with regard to the abuse of prisoners which occured a while back, and was in all the news.

    Fourth

    If thes are new, as in, resulting from new acts of abuse, and not merely newly available images of old ones, then the entire command structure should be court-martialed. Including the commander in chief. (He might not be found guilty, but if he is in any way involved, he should be held accountable)

    It would be worse than Clinton, I'm afraid.

    It is understandable that perhaps, due to bad judgement and miscommunication, sonmething like this could have happened ONCE without the knowledge of the upper levels of the military and their civilian masters, if it has happened AGAIN, that needs to be dealt with.

    To do otherwise defames this nation.

    Finally, if these are simply new images from the actions which occured some time in the past, contemporaneously with the first scandal, I think it serves no purpose to make them public.

    IN fact, the only reason for bringing them forward is to injure the reputation of the USA, and the administration.

    If you don't understand Semitic culture (That includes the Arabs) you can't begin to grasp how offensive this sort of thing is.

    Does anyone know, is this really new, or just more old?

    Posted by jonb at 08/22/2005 @ 10:44pm

59. It is old, just not ever released.

    Posted by love liberty at 08/22/2005 @ 10:46pm

60. OR,

    I cannot say at this time. The water boarding which we are saying is off limits would not be with me. There are other things but not for open discussion.

    Posted by love liberty at 08/22/2005 @ 10:50pm

61. NATHANHALE stated:

    "Bush is commander in chief of the U.S armed forces, with ultimate responsibility for the actions of the military."

    With that Bush exclaims: But I thought that was Dick's job!

    Posted by Munich at 08/22/2005 @ 10:51pm

62. Love Liberty wrote:

    "White House press secretary Scott McClellan concurred, telling reporters that the memo "related specifically to al-Qaida and the Taliban. It did not reference Iraq at all. We have made it clear that we are bound by the Geneva Conventions in Iraq.""

    It didn't reference Iraq, even though one of the many reasons proferred for our military presence in Iraq is that Iraq serves as a breeding ground for terrorists. So does Iraq not harbor terrorists now? Can our military go home now that we've accomplished the goal of getting the terrorists out of Iraq?

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/22/2005 @ 10:54pm

63. So how many conservatives, republicans, and neocons who post on this website don't like Chuck Hagel now?

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/22/2005 @ 11:01pm

64. Bush today on defending U.S. military presence in Iraq:

    "terrorists like bin laden are trying to turn iraq into what afghanistan was"

    How absolutely funny that Bush defends being and staying in Iraq by saying Bin Laden is still alive and a threat.

    BIN LADEN'S NOT IN IRAQ!

    by the way...the new iraqi constitution cannot contradict islamic law. So much for setting up a secular state. So much for setting up a state that won't still be a terrorist breeding ground.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/22/2005 @ 11:07pm

65. Excerp from LTE:

    Worse than a quagmire

    Editor, Sun-Gazette: Last week while we were losing 27 of our fine young soldiers,our do no wrong president was in the luxury of his 1.600 acre ranch in Crawford, Tex.starting a 5 week vacation. He was talking tough again as only he can. "We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq." About two hours north in Dallas, the Veterans for Peace National Convention was being held to let vets from all wars get together and talk about ways to end the war.One question they asked the vets who had served in Iraq was,"If you had a few minutes to talk to President Bush, what would you ask him or tell him?" A lot of the vets said that was just the problem, he never has to talk to them one on one.

    But some others had a lot to say. One marine corporal said, "For our president who has never been shot at or really seen anyone suffering to say, ‘Bring it on' is like a cowboy in a western movie, it makes me sick." Another marine pvt. said "I don't think President Bush will ever realize how many millions of lives he and his lackeys have ruined." A hand full of others simply said they would just like to punch him in the mouth.

    Source: Worse than a quagmire [sungazette.com]

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/22/2005 @ 11:08pm

66. Hopefully all because his political career is over. What stupid statements he made. A bad political gamble just cost him his already long shot chance at the 08 nomination.

    And regarding the memo: Context, Context, Context! NO, the Geneva Convention does not apply to any terrorists we get there. Plus no known terrorists are at Abu Ghraib. Hopefully, we just kill the terrorists so we don't have to even mess around with defending our actions to liberals.

    Posted by love liberty at 08/22/2005 @ 11:09pm

67. It's getting just plain stupid on this site! 80% of military personnel support the president. Every marine I know loves the president and backs him 100%.

    We see off every plane of troops going to and coming back from Iraq that land at March AFB in CA. I never hear the BS you people drudge up. Sure there are military cowards out there, I just hope they get revealed before they put our real heroes in jeopardy.

    If those guys you cite are real, they should just go surrender to the MP's now and beg their case for Administrative discharge and good riddance. We don't have time for cowards and wimps now, nor have we ever.

    We used to be able to just take care of guys like that before the officers had a chance to .

    Posted by love liberty at 08/22/2005 @ 11:14pm

68. didn't see any names there so could have just been an invented liberal story.

    Posted by love liberty at 08/22/2005 @ 11:15pm

69. LL

    It isn't prudent to write things like that.

    Everyone knows that the military pretty much likes the President. Because, (even though he was only in the reserves) he understands military people. He was raised in a military family.

    And he is such a relief after "Bubba".

    So finding a soldier who hates the president, is like finding a woman who hates chocolate. It is newsworthy.

    Posted by jonb at 08/22/2005 @ 11:23pm

70. We used to say out in the field that a guy you couldn't defend on was more dangerous to you than the enemy. He was just very likely to get you killed through indecision, cowardice,or some other character flaw.

    It's life or death, no recess.

    Posted by love liberty at 08/22/2005 @ 11:26pm

71. sorry type, a guy you couldn't depend on

    Posted by love liberty at 08/22/2005 @ 11:26pm

72. Hey LL

    Do ya suppose, LIBERALS could be buying old surplus uniforms, and impersonating American Marines?

    That would be very dangerous, of course.

    The boys in the press corps might just eat that up!

    Ever hear of Gray Owl?

    Posted by jonb at 08/22/2005 @ 11:28pm

73. Ok, I'm gone, vented against liberals enough for one day and I feel much better now.

    Posted by love liberty at 08/22/2005 @ 11:29pm

74. love liberty:

    the new iraqi constitution will be based on islamic law, which does not look as women as equal to men. How can you support President Bush if he allows Iraq to make a constitution based on Islamic Law?

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/22/2005 @ 11:31pm

75. Love Liberty wrote:

    "sorry type, a guy you couldn't depend on"

    Like George W. Bush jumping ship from his duties in the national guard for college? Yes, you're right, that's pretty sorry.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/22/2005 @ 11:34pm

76. In the twentieth century, Grey Owl, an Englishman who impersonated a native American for years, wrote autobiographical books, lectured, and even visited the British royal family to tell them stories about his life. His influential books are credited with starting the conservation movement in Canada. He wasn't found out until shortly after his death in 1938.

    The link is to a subscription site.

    The Atlantic Online [theatlantic.com]

    Posted by jonb at 08/22/2005 @ 11:49pm

77. interestingly, he actually impersonated a Native Canadian.

    But let's not get too technical.

    Posted by jonb at 08/22/2005 @ 11:50pm

78. lotta fakes.

    I remembered that one from a show I saw on the CBC back in '73.

    Funny how you remember stuff.

    Posted by jonb at 08/22/2005 @ 11:51pm

79. Ari, I can't think of anything to add to what my fellow posters have expressed. They seem to have said it all. It's just a sad sad time to be an American.

    Posted by frankgrits at 08/23/2005 @ 01:09am

80. ORAIBI1952: "Conversely, releasing and showing the pictures from Abu Ghraib's house of horrors will influence the attitudes of the American people. I suspect that the attitudes of the American people are what the Bush Pentagon and Bush are really worried about."

    Bingo. It's disingenuous--to say the least--for the Pentagon/White House to cite a backlash from the Muslim world as its primary fear concerning the release of the photos ("the truth") when it's fairly obvious that a constant backlash from Muslims is exactly what they want and exactly what they need to keep American citizens paralyzed with fear, which is ultimately what keeps these lunatics in power (and out of jail, in some cases) and will continue to do so. A never-ending state of war is this administration's idea of paradise (perhaps even culminating in The Rapture! Yipee!). They know damn well that if the American public sees these photos, the homegrown backlash will be much worse than anything the "evil-doers" can throw at them. I think that given the choice they'd rather have grenades thrown at them by incensed insurgents than be thrown out of office by informed citizens. The saddest thing, of course, is that the people who are bearing the brunt of the violence are our brave soldiers, who are guilty of nothing more than being patriotic and following insane, if not downright criminal, orders from the top. Perhaps when election time rolls around the Administration won't get the kind of support via absentee ballots from our citizen soldiers that they have come to expect...

    Posted by PRIMITIVENERD at 08/23/2005 @ 02:15am

81. Love Liberty certainly reveals himself in his last post stating he's vented at liberals enough for one day and now feels better. It's not about getting at the truth it's about venting the hostility and hate the far Right has instilled in him so successfully against a stereotype ("liberal"). Sort of the way in war the enemy is a Gook or Towel Head or Jew, a hate object. The Right focuses not on issues but on hatred toward individuals: Hitlery, Teddy, Michael Moore, et al. Once they get a person in hypercompetitive mode it all becomes about being on their "team" which you defend no matter how corrupt even if it means suspending reality. Mark Twain had it right over a hundred years ago: "In any civic crisis of a great and dangerous sort the common herd is not privately anxious about the rights and wrongs of the matter, it is only anxious to be on the winning side."

    Posted by LovesTruth at 08/23/2005 @ 07:23am

82. Hmmmm Saddaam was deposed [one of several reasons....depending on when you ask]because of his "terrible acts of atrocities" (quote from GOP 2004 convention)

    at Abu Ghraib US military rape, kill, and do other assorted perverted and inhumane things to prisoners of war(probably condoned acts...my own estimation)

    OF course when we do it is to save lives...so that's acceptable. Plus, we're only torturing them "a little bit"...so that's okay.

    Geez...gonna go vomit now and wash my brain

    Posted by leftofcenter at 08/23/2005 @ 08:11am

83. LL:

    You said earlier, "One further note, I was subjected to many of the same stuff as the Abu Ghraib prisoners in the normal course of military initiations (not authorized by the military but conducted by enlisted personnel). My attitude has been so what! When we start sawing peoples heads off slowly so they suffer even more, then we have a reason for getting upset ... Most of you are just pansies who wimp out about war and doing what it takes to win."

    That is utter b.s. Why don't you describe exactly what you were subjected to? I highly doubt the hazing you underwent was in any way comparable to the Abu Ghraib abuses. Calling us pansies about is certainly an expected response for someone who makes such callous comments. That you can rationalize the way we treated the Abu Ghraib prisoners by claiming you are somehow stronger than the rest of us demonstrates you have lost any moral reasoning and are a weaker human being for it, in my opinion.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/23/2005 @ 10:07am

84. ILP: 8/22 4:24PM

    On supporting Clinton even though I don't like him...

    Why do you have to personally "like" a president to support them? We are all Americans, presumably wanting basically the same things in life. I hold a belief system that tells me to support our leaders. I'm not saying they should not be held accountable for their actions. But on the other hand, we will never have a president who is infallible. Politics on the world stage is a never ending array of compromise and choosing the lesser of two, or tree, or even ten evils. A decison has to be made and "all" the people will never think it was the right choice, no matter what that choice ends up being. And this is fine. It's called democracy. But, I choose to support the cause of the bigger picture, while disagreeing from time to time along the way. You choose your way, I'll choose mine.

    TEBETH: 8/22 5:35PM

    "images of war on t.v."

    I remember being a kid and watching those images. I remember my Mom fretting over my Dad the entire time. I remember being scared myself. We went trough this 3 times for his 3 tours of duty. I personally hate war, so does my Dad. I never want to go through that again. I have a son who is coming of age soon. I worry about his future. It is my hope that the actions being taken now will mean he won't have to be faced with the same challanges.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/23/2005 @ 10:16am

85. It is ludicrous to claim that the President who named Alberto "Organ Failure" Gonzales as Attorney General is not responsible for the abuse of his captives.

    Posted by aminorex at 08/23/2005 @ 12:24pm

86. A bit off topic but Ari your Strategic Class was one of the most lucid essays on Beltway policy pushers I have ever read.

    Super!

    Posted by jmac at 08/23/2005 @ 10:51pm