Obama to decide today on torture memos

[Kuya]

It seems the Obama administration has made a 180 on it's position of not opposing the release of the abuse photographs which were to be released this month on the 28th as per the ACLU's request under the Freedom of Information Act.

President Obama defended his decision to fight the release of photos showing detainee abuse Wednesday afternoon, saying it would only put American troops in harms way and create a backlash against Americans.

"The most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger," the president said before departing on his trip to Arizona. "Moreover, I fear the publication of these photos may only have a chilling effect on future investigations of detainee abuse."

The move is a complete 180. In a letter from the Justice Department to a federal judge on April 23, the Obama administration announced that the Pentagon would turn over 44 photographs showing detainee abuse of prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq during the Bush administration.

"The reversal is another indication of a continuance of the Bush administration policies under the Obama administration," ACLU attorney Amrit Singh told ABC News. "President Obama's promise of accountability is meaningless, this is inconsistent with his promise of transparency, it violates the government's commitment to the court. People need to examine these abusive photographs, but also the government officials need to be held accountable."

It's unclear what step the White House will now take, whether the administration will challenge the release in appellate court with new arguments or whether it will take the case to the Supreme Court.

The Bush administration had argued that an exemption from the Freedom of Information Act was needed with these photographs because of the FOIA exemption for law enforcement records that could reasonably be expected to endanger “any individual." The release of the disputed photographs, the Bush administration argued, will endanger United States troops, other Coalition forces, and civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But the Second Circuit Court found that the exemption was not intended "as an all-purpose damper on global controversy."

The Obama argument, however, would be made not under law enforcement grounds, but on national security grounds -- a different legal avenue. Whether the courts will respond differently given the fact that it's a new administration making the argument is also a consideration.

They seem to be arguing, much like the Bush administration did, that releasing the photos would increase anti-US sentiments. I guess somehow releasing photos of abuse is far worse than killing around 120 Afghan civilians during a bombing. Yea, i can see how we can't release those photos but we can keep on bombing cities.

[Kuya]

I want to emphasize this. This is what Obama is saying, he's saying that the photos aren't so bad. Which means if they aren't so bad, nothing we haven't seen before, then why would it cause commotion if it's already something we already know about? If they aren't so bad, why not release them? He seems to be arguing that since it's nothing new, then there's no point to show them, but he may not be telling the truth at all. This is what he said:

"I want to emphasize that these photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the images we remember from Abu Ghraib," the president said on the South Lawn of the White House. "But they do represent conduct that didn't conform with the Army manual."

But this is what is was said about the same photos:

Last year a Republican senator conceded that they contained scenes of "rape and murder" and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said they included acts that were "blatantly sadistic."

U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein ordered the release of certain pictures in a 50-page decision that said terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan have proven they "do not need pretexts for their barbarism."

The ACLU has sought the release of 87 photographs and four videotapes taken at the prison as part of an October 2003 lawsuit demanding information on the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody and the transfer of prisoners to countries known to use torture.

What is shown on the photographs and videos from Abu Ghraib prison that the Pentagon has blocked from release? One clue: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Congress last year, after viewing a large cache of unreleased images, "I mean, I looked at them last night, and they're hard to believe." They show acts "that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhumane," he added.

A Republican Senator suggested the same day they contained scenes of "rape and murder." Rumsfeld then commented, "If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse."

"'The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience,' Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told reporters after Rumsfeld testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. 'We're talking about rape and murder -- and some very serious charges.'

In the same period, reporter Seymour Hersh, who helped uncover the scandal, said in a speech before an ACLU convention: "Some of the worse that happened that you don't know about, ok? Videos, there are women there. Some of you may have read they were passing letters, communications out to their men ... . The women were passing messages saying 'Please come and kill me, because of what's happened.'

"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. The worst about all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror it's going to come out."

[Elvis]

Fucking sigh.

[Beckwin]

this greatly disappoints me. I want a reversal on this reversal.

[Olo401]

A good friend of mine just proposed an interesting hypothesis - if the investigations into these matters and who authorized them were to eventually lead to indictment and trial, the release of these additional photographs could create further bias in the minds of the entire potential jury pool.

From a purely legal standpoint, this makes sense. From the average citizens' point of view though it comes off looking like a defense of malicious behavior.

[Beckwin]

except the obama admin has said it won't prosecute fmr admin officials for torture :/

[Leif]

You can't just go prosecute the previous administration for their policies. Whether waterboarding and the other laughable methods used to "interrogate" detainees is torture or not isn't a decided matter.

Clearly, anyone with a brain realizes that what we do isn't even in the same realm as torture.

Finally, right now we see Obama, who is finally getting the point, flip flopping on his national security issues. Now that he essentially says that releasing this photos would endanger the troops, why did Obama release the initial interrogation memos? Seems to be like a political move. I don't want politics dictating our national security. How about you?

I sense some clear evidence of not only flip flopping on issues but also Obama essentially admitting that it was incredibly stupid to release the initial memos.

The Left's political assault on the George W. Bush administration has essentially backfired. What was a political move to try to recruit Bush-haters to Obamamania is now a huge scandal in Washington because leading Democrats did know that these procedures, including waterboarding, were being used on detainees and did nothing to stop it.

If we are to prosecute the people who gave honest legal advice to the previous administration, were ordered to perform these interrogation techniques, and the administration who implemented legal policies, we are going to be sticking lots of Democrats on the guillotine too.

The most amusing part is the fact that Democrats endorsed and supported what you and they call "torture", insisting its a crime and people who knew about it should be prosecuted. Oh, and watching Pelosi squirm in front of even her adoring liberal media is pretty entertaining too. She has essentially changed her story 6 times now I think.

[Olo401]

except the obama admin has said it won't prosecute fmr admin officials for torture :/

Ah but Congress didn't, and if they ask to have charges filed the US Atty. for DC is I believe compelled to comply.

Leif only the remaining desperate party line toers like yourself, Cheney and Limbaugh cling to the idea that anything backfired. Those of us who are actually informed have known this was coming for years and there were idiot Dems who went along with this stuff (they're the ones who also voted for the dumbass war). Please do yourself a favor and stick to your party's lame co-opting of minor party events and bastardizing political terms with your own meaning. Here in fact I have one for you - since the Dems are now the "Democratic-Socialist Party", the Repubs can be the Republican Anti-Social Party.

[Elvis]

Blah blah blah blah.

You always manage to say a whole lot of nothing.

Explain to us how what we've been doing is NOT torture, douchebag.

[Leif]

The burden of proof is on you, half-brain. You're the one trying to put people in prison. How do you determine that waterboarding crossed the line?
Edit: Quotes from the ACLU and people who simply assume its torture don't count. How do you determine if waterboarding crossed the line, and are there grounds to prosecute those people?

Leif only the remaining desperate party line toers like yourself, Cheney and Limbaugh cling to the idea that anything backfired. Those of us who are actually informed have known this was coming for years and there were idiot Dems who went along with this stuff (they're the ones who also voted for the dumbass war). Please do yourself a favor and stick to your party's lame co-opting of minor party events and bastardizing political terms with your own meaning. Here in fact I have one for you - since the Dems are now the "Democratic-Socialist Party", the Repubs can be the Republican Anti-Social Party.

What? You're gonna have to break this down for me... Let me know if I get your points right.
- Republican party is dying. We should ask Colin Powell to restructure.
- Three people total think enhanced interrogation was effective.
- You have idiot Democrats who consistently vote in favor of keeping America safe.
- Democrat's are not socialists. They just want to control the auto industry and in the process bring some of that "government efficiency" to a failing business model. Oh, they also want to tax sugar.
Did I miss anything?

[Correction]

Clearly, anyone with a brain realizes that what we do isn't even in the same realm as torture..

Except when those same techniques were used on our POWs. Oh yeah THEN it was torture and okay to prosecute those non-Americans for war crimes and torture.

K, sure.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I'm curious, was the torture the JP did to our soldiers done to high level soldiers or just ordinary soldiers doing their job? There's a difference to me in ordinary soldiers and higher ups who are trying to murder as many Americans as they can. And honestly, no matter what we did to them we still treat them better than they treat their prisoners. (Al Qaeda)

And releasing these torture memos was a serious fuck up no matter what side you're on. It's equivalent to telling the Japanese we only have two bombs before we dropped them in WWII.

[Correction]

And releasing these torture memos was a serious fuck up no matter what side you're on. It's equivalent to telling the Japanese we only have two bombs before we dropped them in WWII.

Yeah because keeping the memos secret during the Bush Administration sure stopped all those civillian kidnappings and beheadings in the Middle East, right?

Oh, wait, no, it didn't.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Yeah because keeping the memos secret during the Bush Administration sure stopped all those civillian kidnappings and beheadings in the Middle East, right?

Oh, wait, no, it didn't.

You missed the point. Do you think the JP would have surrendered if they knew the extent of the damage we would cause stopped at two nukes? Now the terrorists can train for what we'll do to them because the know the extent of what we'll do. Releasing the details was stupid. He could have done it without giving the details.

[Correction]

We taser our cops as part of their training. It doesn't make them invulnerable to the things.

[Tristam]

The burden of proof is on you, half-brain. You're the one trying to put people in prison. How do you determine that waterboarding crossed the line?
Edit: Quotes from the ACLU and people who simply assume its torture don't count. How do you determine if waterboarding crossed the line, and are there grounds to prosecute those people?

It is, by absolute definition, torture if it is something that causes prolonged physical or mental anguish on a person by action of another person. For waterboarding, without actually going through the process myself, I will accept the testimony of people who have that it is mentally and physically a horrible process.

This definition also includes sleep deprivation (causes psycosis), although the prevailing "gut feeling" of over 50% of americans (which I assume you share) is that it is not torture.

The problem is that we have a predisposition to consider the crap we see in slasher movies as torture while we have a softer opinion on things that may be just as horrible *to the person undergoing it*. Your impression of what is or is not torture, is quite irrelevant.

Important to remember, the feelings of anger and hostility and desire for revenge do not constitute acceptable reasons to torture. This was contrary to the opinion of most americans at the start of this war and it is finally starting to change.

For at least half a decade now various interrogators have been complaining about the practices for handling prisoners of this war. Just because 2/3ds of the world engages in torture doesn't give us the right to do so. We are supposed to be a model democracy that values law and production in society. Torture, enhanced interrogation, a forced shower, whatever you call it, it is against our interests and our safety as a country. I would love to see the memos that suggest we got reliable information out of interrogation techniques as well, but I doubt any such information is greater or served better than information obtained by less harmful methods. Remember that we did not just torture top ranking al-qaeda officials. The policies started by these memos were farther reaching that I think most on this board realize. Forced confessions from torture forged the "evidence" from Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi AKA "Exhibit A in Colin Powell's fuck-up" that Saddam Hussein trained Al-Qaeda operatives in the use of chemical/biological warfare. This has since been shown to be outright false.

Torture helped get us into, and stay in this war under false pretenses. When the only evidence for something you have is torture, my money is on it being wrong.

edit: Fun fact - torture can cause mental anguish in the person inflicting the torture for the rest of their lives. Noone wins.

[Kuya]

I'm noticing more and more now that whenever you need to justify something, you just need to invoke the military and how you need to support/protect it to silence dissent. Photos? Can't it will harm the troops. Investigations? Can't it will harm the troops. Admitting you killed a hundred civilians and no Taliban operatives? Can't it will harm the troops. You can't say or show that the US has done anything bad or it will harm the troops.

What a nice carte blanche they got there. Does anyone remember Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman? I do so enjoy using the military for selfish interests.

Andrew Sullivan's comments taken by Dan Froomkin in The Washington Post:

Andrew Sullivan blogs: "The MSM cannot see the question of torture and violation of the Geneva Conventions as a matter of right and wrong, of law and lawlessness. They see it as a matter of right and left. And so an attempt to hold Bush administration officials accountable for the war crimes they proudly admit to committing is 'left-wing.' And those of us who actually want to uphold the rule of law ... are now the equivalent of rappers urging the murder of white people."

In a separate post, Sullivan writes: "Slowly but surely, Obama is owning the cover-up of his predcessors' war crimes. But covering up war crimes, refusing to proscute them, promoting those associated with them, and suppressing evidence of them are themselves violations of Geneva and the UN Convention. So Cheney begins to successfully coopt his successor."

Obama needs to stop bending to Cheney's will. He's effectively letting Cheney call the shots, why else, other than Cheney knowing he's in trouble, would he be all over the place, defending torture and accusing the administration of endangering America? He's trying to get Obama to flip flop, and then claim that Obama is a flip flopper. Cheney is trying to become the grand savior of the Republican party and himself.

[Elvis]

Kuya, you are hurting the troops.

[Vekta]

Gotta love armchair activists.

[Elvis]

Armchair activists aid the terrorists by criticizing 'the troops'. They are anti-American leftist degenerate homosexual antisemitic Islamofascists terrorist sympathizers.

And communists.