Should the US release all photos and information on detainee abuse?

[IndianaGreen]

I just watched on STARZ Standard Operating Procedure, Errol Morris uncompromising documentary on the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison and the photos of the torture that took place. The documentary includes interviews with the grunts that witnessed, and some that participated in the events.

Standard Operating Procedure (2008)

Is it possible for a photograph to change the world? Photographs taken by soldiers in Abu Ghraib prison changed the war in Iraq and changed Americas image of itself. Yet, a central mystery remains. Did the notorious Abu Ghraib photographs constitute evidence of systematic abuse by the American military, or were they documenting the aberrant behavior of a few bad apples? We set out to examine the context of these photographs. Why were they taken? What was happening outside the frame? We talked directly to the soldiers who took the photographs and who were in the photographs. Who are these people? What were they thinking? Over two years of investigation, we amassed a million and a half words of interview transcript, thousands of pages of unredacted reports, and hundreds of photographs. The story of Abu Ghraib is still shrouded in moral ambiguity, but it is clear what happened there. The Abu Ghraib photographs serve as both an expose and a coverup. An expose, because the photographs offer us a glimpse of the horror of Abu Ghraib; and a coverup because they convinced journalists and readers they had seen everything, that there was no need to look further. In recent news reports, we have learned about the destruction of the Abu Zubaydah interrogation tapes. A coverup. It has been front page news. But the coverup at Abu Ghraib involved thousands of prisoners and hundreds of soldiers. We are still learning about the extent of it. Many journalists have asked about the smoking gun of Abu Ghraib. It is the wrong question. As Philip Gourevitch has commented, Abu Ghraib is the smoking gun. The underlying question that we still have not resolved, four years after the scandal: how could American values become so compromised that Abu Ghraiband the subsequent coverupcould happen?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0896866/synopsis

The key here is that the grunts were indeed following orders. Torture and detainee abuse was systemic, having first begun in Afghanistan shortly after the US invasion in that country. In the aftermath of 9-11, the Bush regime established a global system of gulags. These gulags remain in place today! There are reports in the British press that the abuses are still ongoing, even after President Obama declared those practices to have ended.

The Pentagon brass and the spooks at CIA would want you to believe that releasing all of the photos, videos, and documents on detainee abuse would put our troops in danger. This is a LIE! This is nothing but the guilty hiding behind our troops to cover their own bloody asses. The people that created the gulags and the system of abuse, torture, and murder, are cowards that would punish the grunts for the crimes that they themselves have committed.

Let's not become collaborators in the cover up of war crimes by a group of sadistic and opportunistic generals and CIA operatives. Let the truth be known, and the wounds be cleansed!

The question to DU: Should the US release all photos and information on detainee abuse?

[Heidi]

1. OTHER: If those photos are evidence in a criminal prosecution, no, they should not be made public.

(nt) <-- Ran outta space in the subject line.

[IndianaGreen]

3. No one is being prosecuted. The grunts were the only ones that were tried!

The whole political establishment wants for us, the American people, to forget anything about the crimes committed by Bush and his thugs. They tell us to not look behind, but look forward. Well, I wonder which criminal will be the one to tell the judge to not look at the crime committed, but to look forward.

[Heidi]

5. Two LBN threads for your perusal.

Criminal investigation into CIA treatment of detainees expected

Allies may torture terror suspects, top UK ministers say

[IndianaGreen]

6. I responded earlier to the LA Times story posted in this forum

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8576472#8576615

Anytime you hear something about an investigation being "narrow in scope" you can bet you are going to get a whitewash.

[panader0]

2. Absolutely

No wound can heal until all of the infection has been removed.

[IndianaGreen]

4. No one above the rank of Staff Sargent has been prosecuted for Abu Ghraib prison

The generals and the CIA and contractor interrogators that did create the gulags were never even touched, and now they are appealing to our concern for the troops' safety to cover their asses and avoid exposure of their own involvement.

[MissWaverly]

8. and then there is "we did not torture lie"

it is still being said over and over again by "loyal bushies." With photos, that would be debunked forever.

[IndianaGreen]

9. And there is Cheney, practically daring anyone to prosecute him

Bush and Cheney have both admitted to having broken the law. Bush admitted he broke FISA, while Cheney is actually bragging about what he did.

[solstice]

7. YES. Anything else is a vote for Bush.

[IndianaGreen]

10. Update: U.S. military accused of atrocities against Iraqi gays

This story is posted in LGBT forum. I remind the reader of how the military brass has allowed Xtian proselyting in the ranks and how fundie chaplains openly violate regulations by proselyting.

U.S. military accused of atrocities against Iraqi gays

Refugee tells stunned audience that soldiers detained, executed gay civilians

By CHRIS JOHNSON & LOU CHIBBARO JR., Washington Blade

Jul 29 2009, 1:21 PM

A fundraising event to benefit an LGBT community center in Lebanon last week took a surprise turn when stunned audience members were shown graphic photographs of beheaded corpses and images purportedly depicting U.S. soldiers preparing to execute gay Iraqis.

Two gay Iraqi refugees, who declined to use their real names, delivered a presentation at the Human Rights Campaign headquarters July 24 in which they detailed alleged abuses of fellow gay Iraqis while calling on their audience to donate funds to Helem, a Lebanon-based center that works to address the plight of LGBT people in the Middle East.

One of the Iraqis, who goes by the name “Hussam,” showed the audience of about 80 people gruesome images, including shots allegedly of a beheaded man who was gay and another of the victim’s twin brother grieving over the severed head.

While asserting that anti-gay violence in Iraq is often committed by Iraqis, Hussam also said U.S. service members were involved in anti-gay hostility.

For example, he said service members displayed signs in front of their barracks with the words “Fuck Off Fags.”

But the reaction from the audience turned from anger to shock when Hussam said U.S. service members had detained Iraqi civilians perceived to be gay and executed them.

He then showed an image of what appeared to be an American soldier standing in front of a small group of four or five kneeling naked men who were chained together. Hussam claimed the men were gay Iraqis and that he possessed images of their execution, which he did not show the audience.

http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=26487

[Hippo_Tron]

11. Morally, probably yes... Politically, not a chance in hell

[Onlooker]

12. No. It's too voyeuristic

We've seen enough photos to know what went on. To release those photos is perverse and exploitative of the victims.

[IndianaGreen]

14. Perhaps because the photos showed rapes of girls and sodomizing of boys

One of the war crimes we committed in Iraq, and discussed in DU at the time, was that the military was taking hostage the families of insurgent leaders. This is a war crime! What happened to those families? There have been stories about mass rapes and sodomy of children by US personnel, whether military or contractor it doesn't matter.

[invictus]

13. YES! That is the change that I voted for. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

15. I didn't vote to bail out the banks.

I voted to end the war and the abuses of power committed by the Bush regime.

[Hutzpa]

16. About time to call their bluff n/t

[BklnDem75]

17. H.R.2346 - Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act of 2009

Sec. 1305.
(a) Short Title- This section may be cited as the ‘Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009’.


(b) Definitions- In this section:

(1) COVERED RECORD- The term ‘covered record’ means any record--


(A) that is a photograph that was taken between September 11, 2001 and January 22, 2009 relating to the treatment of individuals engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States in operations outside of the United States;

(B) for which a certification by the Secretary of Defense under subsection (c) is in effect.


(2) PHOTOGRAPH- The term ‘photograph’ encompasses all photographic images, whether originals or copies, including still photographs, negatives, digital images, films, video tapes, and motion pictures.


(c) Certification-


(1) IN GENERAL- For any photograph described under subsection (b)(1)(A), the Secretary of Defense shall certify, if the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, determines that the disclosure of that photograph would endanger--

(A) citizens of the United States; or

(B) members of the Armed Forces or employees of the United States Government deployed outside the United States.

(2) CERTIFICATION EXPIRATION- A certification submitted under paragraph (1) and a renewal of a certification submitted under paragraph (3) shall expire 3 years after the date on which the certification or renewal, as the case may be, is submitted to the President.

(3) CERTIFICATION RENEWAL- The Secretary of Defense may submit to the President--

(A) a renewal of a certification in accordance with paragraph (1) at any time; and

(B) more than 1 renewal of a certification.

(4) CERTIFICATION RENEWAL- A timely notice of the Secretary’s certification shall be provided to Congress.


(d) Nondisclosure of Detainee Records- A covered record shall not be subject to--

(1) disclosure undersection 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the Freedom of Information Act); or

(2) disclosure under any proceeding under that section.


(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preclude the voluntary disclosure of a covered record.


(f) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act and apply to any photograph created before, on, or after that date that is a covered record.

[BklnDem75]

18. Remember this bill?

This is the same bill many were having a baby over when Obama added signing statements to this.

[IndianaGreen]

20. Signing statements are unconstitutional

It doesn't matter who the President is, or what party he or she belongs to, the Constitution only allows a veto or a pocket veto. A President cannot pick and choose which laws to enforce.

[BklnDem75]

21. Encroaching on a president's power is also unconstitutional

So why is it ok for one, but not the other? Back on topic, the post was to show that a bill already passed protecting the photos from being released. Why make a poll about releasing the photos? Do you expect Obama to do something unconstitutional?

[IndianaGreen]

23. Obama has already broken the law by refusing to prosecute law breakers from Bush regime

The Constitution does not give a President the option to enforce only those laws he or she agrees with. Perhaps this is the biggest change we expected from Obama, that he would restore the rule of law. As Mark Weisbrot wrote in today's op-ed in NY Times, "President Obama has continued the Bush policies and in some cases has done worse."

[BklnDem75]

24. And his opinion means...?

The Constitution doesn't give Congress certain options either. If the two branches disagree, the SCOTUS will handle it. So far, SCOTUS made no rulings on signing statements. I doubt SCOTUS will rule that the president must follow what they deem unconstitutional in the first place. It really doesn't matter if you agree with it or not.

[bigwillq]

19. Yes (nt)

[Orsino]

22. Yes.

Whether or not we fail to prosecute torture, the UN and other nations ought to have the chance.

[debbierlus]

25. Hmmmmm - unrecommended even though 75% of the board wants full release

Strange numbers.

[IndianaGreen]

27. Let's say we have our own version of the 30% that supported Bush no matter what

We need to restore the Republic. Having an emperor, even a Democratic one, will be bad for the country. As I said many times before, the power one gives the government to do the things one wants, will be used by that government to do the things you don't want. This is why the Framers were distrustful of granting too much power to any branch of government, and made it so that the people could not violate the rights of a minority.

[nonsequitur]

26. I'm not sure. I'd like to see them, that's for sure but it could back fire....

if it put's the troops in danger. I disagree with you that it won't. I don't think we can know because we don't know what's in there to show.