home

Torture Photos Previously Released in 2006

Raw Story reports the torture photos the Obama Administration reversed course on releasing this week include photos released by the Australian news in 2006. Raw Story, as well as TalkLeft, published them then. (I've reprinted some several times since then.)

So if the world has already seen them, and a federal appeals court has upheld a trial court's order to produce them to the ACLU, what's Obama's justification?

< Obama and the Revival of Flawed Military Commissions | 43 Kids StunGunned at Prison Guards "Take Your Kid" to School Day >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Perhaps he could reinvent the camera (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Anne on Fri May 15, 2009 at 03:45:15 PM EST
    and start over.  I mean, he won't accept the obviousness of Medicare as a model/basis for a single-payer health care system, but is determined to build some sort of hybrid system that seems guaranteed to protect the insurance industry.  He won't accept the value of our long-standing civilian judicial system or the well-oiled military system under the UCMJ to deal with detainees, but instead wants to resort to military commissions that he once thought were the wrong way to handle things.

    So, I say, he should start over and build a better camera that will not only prove that any existing torture photos are worthless, but will only give us rainbows and unicorns and sunshine when the shutter is clicked.


    These photos (none / 0) (#23)
    by lentinel on Fri May 15, 2009 at 05:54:44 PM EST
    have already been altered.

    They are actually photos of little doggies romping in Central Park in New York. Far from menacing anyone, they are actually in a "begging" position asking for more kibble. The people in the photos are actually laughing and eager to pet the cute little hounds.

    The so-called prisoners in the photos are in reality salesmen showing the newest fashion in  lampshades to interested clientele.

    Obama should insist on releasing the rest of the photos which clearly show the so-called prisoners bowling and watching American Idol in the lounge.

    Parent

    Having it both ways (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by MKS on Fri May 15, 2009 at 04:01:58 PM EST
    Obama wants the military and the CIA on his side--he doesn't want to have the problems that JFK did.....(but he will still need to push back against the Generals at some point.)

    On the other hand, he knows the photos will come out anyway--a fair assumption even absent the information about the Australian News having the photos.

    There is a certain Machiavellian tint to this.

     

    The CIA were on excellent terms (none / 0) (#15)
    by Salo on Fri May 15, 2009 at 05:21:42 PM EST
    with JFK.  He gave them their largest inflation adjusted budget increase in history.   He did what ever they asked him to do with relish.

    Parent
    Allen Dulles? (none / 0) (#16)
    by MKS on Fri May 15, 2009 at 05:25:11 PM EST
    JFK should have never let him stay on.....

    Parent
    No. JFK was a Cold Warrior (none / 0) (#17)
    by Cream City on Fri May 15, 2009 at 05:33:40 PM EST
    to the max, on his own, and didn't need Dulles' encouragement.  Look at JFK's record in Congress from the day he landed -- as part of the big Cold Warrior WWII vet class.

    Parent
    And (none / 0) (#20)
    by lentinel on Fri May 15, 2009 at 05:43:39 PM EST
    JKF had much the same reputation as Obama does now.

    JKF was, of course the alternative to Nixon.
    Obama wound up as the alternative to .... whatever.

    But his record shows that he is absolutely nowhere.

    Can you imagine anyone with any brains or heart or integrity going to Connecticut to campaign for Lieberman? Against Lamont, yet?
    And saying that "Joe" (his buddy) was working "in our behalf"?!!

    This is one of the dumbest statement by anyone in the last 50 years.

    And now he is our president.
    And, according to Sykes, "everybody loves him".
    ShI---t.

    Parent

    Kos polling: Obama lost a point. (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Fri May 15, 2009 at 05:49:52 PM EST
    But so did Dems. in Congress.  

    Parent
    I (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by lentinel on Fri May 15, 2009 at 05:59:21 PM EST
    I hope that Obama loses more than a point.

    I hope that he loses the unquestioning, drooling, fawning, idiot coterie - including the press and the so-called blogosphere.

    Parent

    The more you talk about who condoned (none / 0) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 15, 2009 at 07:04:50 PM EST
    torture along with those that ordered it up, the more vacant their stare becomes......and the drooling gets really bad.  Don't even attempt to point out to them that we are still glamorizing and promoting torturers either.......they start touching themselves then in order to escape reality.

    Parent
    A whole point huh? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 15, 2009 at 07:01:20 PM EST
    For ensuring that the Bushie lowered standard for what constitutes humane treatment of others remains just as low as it ever was.  Sometimes my nation is so collectively shallow and stupid it is stunning.

    Parent
    I would just like him to (none / 0) (#35)
    by Anne on Fri May 15, 2009 at 07:14:25 PM EST
    get THE point, or maybe we're up to about seven points he needs to get.

    I'm reaching the outrage-saturation point; time for a Friday night drinkie.

    Parent

    I gotta see a man about a dog (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 15, 2009 at 07:17:12 PM EST
    I really do.  I don't get a Friday night drinkie for a long time.......so you better have a couple for me.

    Parent
    Continuity you can believe in? (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Mitch Guthman on Fri May 15, 2009 at 04:25:18 PM EST
    I don't think it's this particular batch of photos that has Obama's worried. I think the new push is to keep the lid on releases of torture photos and audio recordings generally.  From his new, Bush-like perspective, he may see this case as a precedent which would open the floodgates for the release of some of the even nastier stuff that we did in Iraq and elsewhere.

    I am reminded of the fact that, in 2004, Sy Hersh gave a speech to the ACLU making the charge that children were sodomized in front of women in at least one American prison in Iraq and the Pentagon has video tape of it.  This is the money quote: "Debating about it, ummm... Some of the worst things that happened you don't know about, okay?  Videos, um, there are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib... The women were passing messages out saying 'Please come and kill me, because of what's happened' and basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It's going to come out."   I don't know why he is protecting Bush & Co. from these investigations and prosecutions, but it does seem to be a very high priority for him and if something like what Sy Hersh is talking about exists and is released, it might not be possible for Obama to continue to protect Bush, et al.

    Also, Obama may be buying into the Bush-era approach to things even more than we think and this may account for his about-face on torture. Andrew Sullivan suggests that the recent appointment of Gen. McChrystal a leader who can be directly linked to the worst images and incidents of prisoner torture and abuse under Bush: "And one can't help but wonder at the same time: is McChrystal the reason for the sudden volte-face on the abuse photos? Their resurfacing would make hearings very awkward".http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/

    Hersh's track record on this makes me think that Obama is worried that once the ACLU and the American people get their hand on this batch, they'll just start asking for the really disgusting stuff next.  I think it would be very hard to shut down the calls for investigations and prosecutions if that sort of thing was released.  Remember, there had been lots of articles and radio reports about prisoner abuse all along but it was the visual images which moved people.  And if Sy Hersh is right, those tapes really would make everything we've seen thus far look like "fraternity hazing" by comparison.

    I appreciate that Obama inherited all this stuff from Bush, but it seems to me that on things like torture, civil rights, military policy (including gays), the only thing that seems to have changed is that Obama gives much better speeches.  

    Anybody out there want to defend this stuff as being the change we were promised?

    It seems to me that Obama (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 15, 2009 at 04:34:02 PM EST
    wants to win HIS war using the same heinous violations of the Geneva Conventions that Bush got to use in his Iraq War.  Releasing these photos will cause the American public to gasp, cry, and then call for McChrystal's head instead of ignoring for his promotion.  NOPE.......we gotta keep these military torture photos locked up tighty tight.

    Parent
    And it really troubles me when I find myself (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 15, 2009 at 04:37:35 PM EST
    on the same page as Andrew Sullivan but sh*t happens now doesn't it?

    Parent
    That it does.... (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by kdog on Fri May 15, 2009 at 04:55:07 PM EST
    the sickest sh*t you can imagine...and then some.

    We're gonna have to wait 50 years minimum for the air to get fully cleared...unless we collapse first.

     

    Parent

    I hope (none / 0) (#19)
    by lentinel on Fri May 15, 2009 at 05:37:42 PM EST
    that we have 50 years.

    Parent
    Panic Park (none / 0) (#31)
    by kidneystones on Fri May 15, 2009 at 06:56:59 PM EST
    First, let me state un-equivocally my opposition to both Iraq wars. I supported the initial placing of troops in Afghanistan in November of 2001. I question now the wisdom of that decision, long-term at least. I also opposed the surge and generally wanted to see all US troops withdrawn. The administration should be allowed the freedom to change positions.

    That said, there is no doubt an extremely disturbing pattern in emerging. I admired Pelosi after up to 2006 for keeping the impeachment folks under control until Dems had a chance to win power.

    I believed then and I believe now that only a thorough investigation of the energy conferences and intelligence meetings were the evidence was 'cooked-up' will suffice. I'm inclined to believe that all of us are capable of the sort of abuse we see in these photos given the 'wrong environment'.

    Cheney and Bush deserve their day in court, not because I believe them to be guilty, but because there is a great deal we still do not know. Both deserve the presumption of innocence. The Iraq war was a bi-partisan debacle and both parties played their parts in its execution. America is in Iraq now and Dems are finding it extremely difficult to reconcile themselves with reality: simply changing leaders does not change the facts on the ground.

    US generals are saying that stability in Iraq will likely require a ten to twenty year commitment, but folks are ignoring them in much the same way folks ignored Shinseki. Doesn't fit with the narrative.

    This administration scrubs web-sites of embarrassing fact much more effectively than Bushco. Many of us were frightened by the efficacy of the Obama truth machine during the primaries. His continued high numbers suggest he hasn't lost his touch. That may change if the kool-aid drinkers rebel. But I wouldn't count on it.

    Parent

    I am not suprised at what has happened. (none / 0) (#41)
    by AX10 on Fri May 15, 2009 at 09:11:37 PM EST
    Pissed off?  Yes I am.
    However, I knew Obama would do this.
    His slick rhetoric during the campaign showed who he was and what would be done.

    Parent
    I personally couldn't understand how (none / 0) (#52)
    by DeborahNC on Fri May 15, 2009 at 11:48:39 PM EST
    people thought he was friend of of the Left. He was too evasive when direct questions were asked. I followed the election closely, and I just COULD NOT get a handle on what his positions were on lots of major issues.

    After he was the nominee I wanted to believe the best about him, but I can say that I'm not surprised by what we're seeing now. Disappointed though? Yes!

    Parent

    Salon has a post about this (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by BernieO on Fri May 15, 2009 at 07:36:06 PM EST
    Apparently Hersch gave a speech last week to the ACLU that repeated the charge that there are pictures (a video) of children being sodomized. He says he has heard from people who witnessed this.

    Parent
    I suppose the overarching response (none / 0) (#13)
    by MKS on Fri May 15, 2009 at 04:52:43 PM EST
    is that liberal Presidents tend to disappoint on issues of war and human rights.  FDR, JFK and LBJ come to mind.  And Truman dropped the bomb, although being right about containement of Communism--rather than invading.

    Carter was very good on human rights.  Bill apologized to Guatemala for the U.S.'s complicity in the genocide there....I think it was Bill's doing so that started the conservatives off on this hatred of American making apologies.

    Parent

    Obama's justification? (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by lentinel on Fri May 15, 2009 at 05:36:18 PM EST
    Obama doesn't feel a need to justify anything.

    The more I follow the course of his administration, the less interested in it I feel.

    I just hope we survive it.

    This LAT article (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Fri May 15, 2009 at 11:21:25 PM EST
    Discouraged? Yes. Surprised? No. (none / 0) (#53)
    by DeborahNC on Fri May 15, 2009 at 11:50:38 PM EST
    Letter to NYT on Obama (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by oculus on Fri May 15, 2009 at 08:12:25 PM EST
    decision not to volunatrily release photos:

    To the Editor:

    When Allied forces liberated the Nazi death camps in World War II, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Allied commander, ordered German citizens to walk through the concentration camps to see the victims' bodies. He wanted them to witness what their government had done as proof against denials the Holocaust had occurred.

    President Obama should follow Eisenhower's example and let Americans confront the visual evidence of the horrors committed in our name. Verbal accounts are not enough to silence those who will deny or minimize this abuse.

    Claude Cookman
    Bloomington, Ind., May 14, 2009

    The writer, an associate professor in the Indiana University School of Journalism, is a historian of photography who has published on the My Lai atrocity photographs.




    What's the justification? That was then (3.66 / 3) (#2)
    by Cream City on Fri May 15, 2009 at 03:21:04 PM EST
    and this is now, and you were promised change, and this is it.  Next?

    And (none / 0) (#4)
    by talesoftwokitties on Fri May 15, 2009 at 03:27:34 PM EST
    we must move forward.

    Parent
    And (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Cream City on Fri May 15, 2009 at 04:35:00 PM EST
    he's making another major speech this week.  On something, I forget what.  But it will be about hope and change, youbetcha.

    Parent
    Me... (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by lentinel on Fri May 15, 2009 at 05:56:16 PM EST
    I hope I have some change left over by the time he's finished.

    Parent
    Well, he better be careful with his (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by nycstray on Fri May 15, 2009 at 11:01:21 PM EST
    scheduling if he's planning for prime time, AGAIN . . . .

    DTWS and AI are in finals etc. He darn well better not mess with our escapism, lol!~~~ Thank goodness for cable and MLB!!!!

    Parent

    The Hopey, Changey, President (none / 0) (#44)
    by BrassTacks on Fri May 15, 2009 at 10:39:25 PM EST
    Please wake me when anything like that happens.

    Parent
    It's a time (none / 0) (#56)
    by kmblue on Sat May 16, 2009 at 06:31:23 AM EST
    for reflection, not retribution, etc.

    I'm getting sick and tired of Obama.

    Parent

    funny (none / 0) (#1)
    by Salo on Fri May 15, 2009 at 03:11:09 PM EST
    I misread Federal Appeals Court as Feudal Appeals Court.

    what's Obama's justification? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 15, 2009 at 03:26:03 PM EST
    they show our bad side?

    Right, they show our Dark Side! (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by DeborahNC on Fri May 15, 2009 at 10:42:55 PM EST
    Well, guess what? Cheney is the apotheosis of the Dark Side, and everybody in the world knows it, except the Americans who watch Fox News... or CBS, NBC, ABC, et al.

    In addition to that, I think Obama is trying to appease the Republicans too much, along with the conservative Dems.

    He sometimes seems to respond more favorably to his former opponents more than those who supported his candidacy. Just sayin'.

    Parent

    It is really simple (none / 0) (#30)
    by ChiTownMike on Fri May 15, 2009 at 06:52:02 PM EST
    why he is not releasing them. The release of the CIA documents caused a real un-calculated dustup. Instead of buying him the political capital he thought it would it turned lose the hounds on both the Left and Right. He is not about to throw gas on the fire now. It would be dumb for him to do so.

    So what is everyone wondering about? The reason is quite simple.

    Parent

    Oh goody (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 15, 2009 at 06:57:43 PM EST
    A voice of reason........NOT

    Parent
    It is believed that the pictures being held back by the Obama administration may include some of these shots

    Also, even if they are all the same photos, re-releasing them would likely re-open old wounds and that probably wouldn't be good for our soldier's safety.

    So they say (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by MKS on Fri May 15, 2009 at 04:06:16 PM EST
    It would be better for our soldiers' safety to have never tortured in the first place.

    Parent
    Explain (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by lentinel on Fri May 15, 2009 at 05:47:21 PM EST
    how the release of these photos is bad for our soldiers' safety.

    This is, in my opinion, one crock.

    Everyone knows how we have treated prisoners.
    The only ones in denial are the American people.

    The withholding of these photos is simply an effort to numb American public opinion. This is because Americans would traditionally have demanded that the perpetrators be severely punished.

    But Obama wants to protect them.

    Obama belongs to them, not us.

    Parent

    Also, even if they are all the same photos (none / 0) (#26)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 15, 2009 at 06:04:56 PM EST
    Also, even if they are all the same photos, re-releasing them would likely re-open old wounds and that probably wouldn't be good for our soldier's safety.


    Parent
    It also would not be good for (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Anne on Fri May 15, 2009 at 06:18:08 PM EST
    the major speech he is giving in the Middle East in early June.

    From McClatchey:

    The timing of the president's decision suggests that a key factor behind his switch of position could have been a desire to prevent the release of the photos before a speech that he's to give June 4 in Egypt aimed at convincing the world's Muslims that the United States isn't at war with them. The pictures' release shortly before the speech could have negated its goal and proved highly embarrassing. Even if courts ultimately reject Obama's new position, the time needed for their consideration could delay the photos' release until long after the speech.

    That's gonna be one supercalifragilisticexpialidocious-ly wonderful sales job, isn't it?  The Greek columns and the heavenly light might have to come out of mothballs for that one, huh?

    It's just always about him, isn't it?

    Parent

    You're going overboard (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by WS on Fri May 15, 2009 at 09:27:11 PM EST
    with your criticism, Anne.  No doubt, there's disappointment with the President on this issue but the rest of the criticism seems like you prefer axe grinding more so than actual, legitimate criticism.  

    Parent
    Hate to point this out to you (4.00 / 3) (#48)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 15, 2009 at 11:23:31 PM EST
    but the president of the United States actually is, um, the president of the United States and represents this country and its foreign policy abroad.  If the president is, as this one is, making a concerted effort to at least make back some ground the Bush creature lost in our relations with Middle Eastern countries, it would be flat-out stupid to have those pix suddenly in all the Mideast papers and on TV just before he makes a visit.

    As somebody pointed out, the overwhelming majority of these folks are illiterate, so pix have a huge impact and the fact that these are from the past and we've supposedly renounced those tactics now simply won't be absorbed at all by many Arabs.

    In any case, that's pretty clearly a secondary issue.  The military are the ones who convinced him not to release the pix.  They may be right, for the same reasons as above, but the military is wildly conservative and over-cautious.  Sneezing would put soldiers at risk, in their minds.

    Also in any case, he knows and we should understand that those pix are going to be released in the not too distant future by court order.

    I think he'd do far better to release them voluntarily at this point, but the reasons for not doing so really aren't trivial, especially since most of them are already public and there's literally nothing of substance to be learned by having them dominate news coverage around the world and renew the resentment and fear of the U.S. especially in the Arab world.

    Honestly, Anne, you're beginning to sound like Sean Hannity.

    Parent

    Wow - thanks for the smack-down... (4.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Anne on Sat May 16, 2009 at 10:00:40 AM EST
    Do you realize what has happened just this week?

    Here's a summary from Glenn:

    Monday - Obama administration's letter to Britian threatening to cut off intelligence-sharing if British courts reveal the details of how we tortured British resident Binyam Mohamed;

    Tuesday - Promoted to military commander in Afghanistan Gen. Stanley McChyrstal, who was deeply involved in some of the worst abuses of the Bush era;

    Wednesday - Announced he was reversing himself and would try to conceal photographic evidence showing widespread detainee abuse -- despite the rulings from two separate courts (four federal judges unanimously) that the law compels their disclosure;

    Friday -  Unveiled his plan to preserve a modified system of military commissions for trying Guantanamo detainees, rather than using our extant-judicial processes for doing so.

    Can you explain to me how the decisions he's made in the last week or so, together with his invoking of state secrets, combine to send a message to the Muslim world that we are not at war with them?  Do you think the rest of the world, including our allies who would not agree to extradite terror suspects to us because we were using military commissions to, as Robert Gibbs repeatedly said in his briefing yesterday, bring swift and certain justice, are so ignorant that they do not understand what is in those photos?

    Why not take it to the level Obama seems to be arguing for?  Let's just let things happen in secret, and trust our government to let us know anything they think they can trust us with.  Let's just keep moving forward, okay, and take the position that if we didn't see it, it never happened.

    Here's another question for you: how much better would it have been if, instead of taking the Bush/Cheney approach - or should I say, continuing that approach - Obama (1) reversed the Bush decision to threaten the Brits if they released information in connection with the suit of a man who had his genitals sliced while in our detention, (2) removed generals from command who have been hip-deep in torture and abuse, (3) allowed the release of the photos and gave a speech where he committed himself to seeing that those responsible for it were held accountable (although that might be tough since he's already indicated he's just not into that approach) and (4) decided not to tweak an already-bad idea, scrapped the military commissions thing altogether, and committed to the administration of justice in accordance with long-standing American principles.

    What kind of message would that send the world?  In my opinion, one that would be a lot better than the one he is sending.  It wold not just be a better message for the world, but also a better one for us: it might give us some reason to think that our rights and privileges were in better hands now than they were pre-January 20; as it stands, I do not have a lot of confidence that they are.

    Sean Hannity, my a$$.

    Parent

    Thanks Rush (2.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Socraticsilence on Sat May 16, 2009 at 12:27:42 PM EST
    why don't you give us a little more of the full-on wingnut there.  "Heavenly lights, Greek Columns"  Oh, and you laugh now- but perception of the United States within Turkey basically inverted between mid-2008 and April of 2009- Obama, giving speeches within Europe, and making Turkey the first nation to recieve an official state visit basically flipped the US from incredibly unpopular, to one of the most respected Turkish allies. (a muslim country- something that wasn't lost in the region)(I'm only familar with Turkey due to focusing my thesis on it this semester)- Heck, recent polling has shown approval for Obama topping 50% in a lot Middle Eastern nations- though there is a significant gap between approval of Obamqa and approval of the US as a whole the second number has gone up quite a bit in the last 6 months.  

    Parent
    I don't know about change (none / 0) (#27)
    by SOS on Fri May 15, 2009 at 06:14:58 PM EST
    to me it's getting pretty difficult if not next to impossible to look ahead far enough to make solid long term plans these days. Based on what?

    Spending the rest of my life (none / 0) (#29)
    by SOS on Fri May 15, 2009 at 06:21:18 PM EST
    blowing out my own opinions and blasting out  "heads ups" doesn't excite me to much anymore.

    Parent
    Surrounded by Bush (none / 0) (#37)
    by joze46 on Fri May 15, 2009 at 07:25:51 PM EST
    In my opinion Leon Panetta has not spent enough time to forward any type of severe letter to defend the CIA, or chastise anyone.  

    Please, Ladies and Gentlemen Mr. Panetta just assigned to the CIA likely has not earned enough to even understand what is on the local cafeteria menu list. Let alone who is who and what is what in the deep CIA files. Like Keith Olberman does suggest more often "WTF" is going on. Please I chuckle more than usual when he says that.

    Leon is more likely totally surrounded by Bush hold overs with a gun to their heads to get the job done or else so Bush does not go to the slammer. The job is to place so much uncertainty that nothing can be determined, especially, make Pelosi look guilty on prosecution cable news. Those years of pressure from Cheney's shadow secret police system still could be in motion. Yikes, lock your doors, shutter your widows cover them with sheets. That's likely another funny that will make America and World vomit.

    Still on the Internet do a Google to notice a huge breaking article by Dana Priest;

    http://www.danapriestfansite.com/articlesondp/twincitiesinterview-danapriest.html

    Here we have a huge witness to this stuff and where is she, that was 2005 gosh, what the heck?

    Consider this, Pelosi was told, or Pelosi was not told is moot, when one reads this stuff. This stuff was out four years ago, I don't care what Pelosi recalls, how come the current media fails to recall what this Dana Priest did find in her reporting. The understanding this woman received a Pulitzer Prize in reporting these gulags in Western Europe. WOW, Sheesh, as it is true, Leon Panetta is way off course; the CIA had a water board or sodomy show playing all around Europe for years. Yikes.  

    It is very well known in my memory that a long difficult systematic pressure was placed on the news media to prevent them from publishing secret gulags operated and paid for by our government, Bush and Company, hailed as totally false at the time by Bush and Company. Why don't we look at this time line, well of course Chris Mathews is pounding away at Pelosi, of course if you scratched his head as Michael Savage suggested we would find Chris Mathews as a possible Marxist. Ha, ha.

    The one thing that is certain is the secret pledge those representatives must or need to make that keep National Security Secrets. Though the conversations are getting close to that point as the core to real debate in a Constitutional addressability. What the Journalist on cable and hate radio news fail to do is identify that Constitutional statement which cover this breach of action violates the law as a crime.

    Bush is guilty, no way around it, get used to the GOP are a criminal corporation, that includes banking, military operations, and free stock market corruption gone wild, especially all of a sudden three major manufacturing institutions, the auto's go bankrupt at the same time. Please it all points to Bush and monumental corruption. This was not a hand off of respectability the Republicans shoved this "right" up our ass. Perhaps thats why Obama does not want to look back...OOOOh that does not feel so good...  

    Jeralyn, is this blog TalkLeft (none / 0) (#40)
    by ProudTroll on Fri May 15, 2009 at 08:40:46 PM EST
    or FarLeft?

    "So if the world has already seen them, and a federal appeals court has upheld a trial court's order to produce them to the ACLU, what's Obama's justification?"

    Ever consider the possibility that Obama conducted some internal polling on the issue and discovered that his position during the campaign was not a winner among the electorate?

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090506/pl_mcclatchy/3227709

    Think about it.  If a plurality of Americans don't support an investigation according to a left-leaning polling entity such as McClatchy-Ipsos, how likely would they support releasing photos?

    So principles be d*mned, Troll. (5.00 / 7) (#43)
    by Cream City on Fri May 15, 2009 at 09:30:50 PM EST
    As for the political spectrum, supposedly even the far right supports the Constitution.  And, of course, the far right claims the moral position.

    You claim neither support of the Constitution nor morality or even human decency but only political expediency.  

    Parent

    because being anti-torture and pro-upholding the rule of law doesn't poll well?

    I do hope that is not what you meant.

    Polling be damned.  Nixon's impeachment polled badly to begin with -- things changed as facts came out.  These facts need to come out.  Obama does not need to go all googly-eyed and amnestic, playing kumbaya re: war crimes.

    Parent

    he's not running for reelection (none / 0) (#55)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 16, 2009 at 01:14:13 AM EST
    he needs to keep his base -- a base that believed he stood for change and keeping his promises.

    Parent
    He has kept a ton (none / 0) (#59)
    by Socraticsilence on Sat May 16, 2009 at 12:30:06 PM EST
    of promises though, its not like he's got into office and just flipped on everything.

    Parent
    i kind of get the distinct (none / 0) (#49)
    by cpinva on Fri May 15, 2009 at 11:24:06 PM EST
    impression that the people currently trying to kill our guys really don't need any additional incentive. what are they going to do, stomp their feet and hold their breath, until they turn blue in the face, to show how really, really angry they are at us?

    oh why does australia hate america so?

    Hope Australia does plan on receiving (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Fri May 15, 2009 at 11:30:02 PM EST
    notice from US of threats to Australia.  (snk)

    Parent
    "Not" (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Fri May 15, 2009 at 11:30:47 PM EST
    Good Grief. (none / 0) (#54)
    by dualdiagnosis on Sat May 16, 2009 at 01:06:28 AM EST
    It's simple, really. Bush was right.