« APA Psychologist's torture debate emails leaked. | kgb999's Blog | A nation does not win a war.
(who wants a war anyhow) »
(who wants a war anyhow) »
Yet another thought on the Iraqi photo decision.
There are many who applaud Obama for his decision to block the release of Iraqi abuse photographs. I am not one. I know people have loved ones in the line of fire, I can't judge any opinion, partly because I too was very afraid when the first Abu Ghraib photos were published and someone I loved was deployed. But I still strongly disagree with Obama's decision.
These are not normal times. We are in the shadow of great betrayal. Many of those who betrayed us are still very much walking the corridors of power, often in positions of high authority. This is true in finance as well as the military. It is the double-edged sword of Obama's bipartisan gamble. It's pointless to debate if the strategy was worth it, it's the course we are on. So it is not a foregone conclusion that everyone holding a position of authority in Obama's administration buys into, or is even necessarily working toward, his objectives.
Many people have created strawmen of media fetish and torture-porn that disrespect the strength of conviction in those who feel it is important to disclose the photos for the purposes of justice. The official explanation of torture employed by our military in Iraq is unsustainable in face of the facts already exposed. There are holes in the explanations and obvious gaps in accountability. The belief this issue is being addressed by the democratic leadership is largely defined by speculation over what has not been ruled out completely, or simple blind faith.
Congress responds based on public questions and popular demand for accountability - usually shouted to get over the din of special interest lobbyists. The only reason anybody has been held accountable to date is because Americans have fought to expose the abuses and officials have been forced to acknowledge and respond. If the questions had not been forced, those who now argue "we know it happened ... isn't that enough?" wouldn't even know it happened. A handful of low-ranking foot soldiers have been convicted, and no officer has officially been acknowledged as having participated. The official statement from Obama is that the Iraqi abuses were carried out by a mere few individuals. A couple of scapegoats rotting in a military prison is not justice in this instance.
Soldiers have risked everything to come forward - and some paid a high price of ostracization and fear of violence. FBI and CIA agents faced legal sanction and the disdain of their peers, often effectively ending their careers to come forward. Still others have risked exposure providing crucial details to organizations like Human Rights Watch and even the oft maligned New York Times. The ACLU has fought tirelessly to free crucial memos and reports through FOIA requests - and they will burn countless additional resources seeing through the process that Obama had promised them, just last week, would be curtailed.
Through the entire journey there has been an endless drumbeat: "By exposing the wrongdoing you are putting the troops in danger. You are putting fellow Americans at risk".
The people who put themselves on the line to expose what little we know so far weren't democrats. They weren't republicans. They didn't stand up, speak out, dig deeper, for partisan gain. They did it for America. They took the accusations of working against America and putting their colleagues at risk and did the right thing. Despite the drumbeat. Many have no more reason to trust a democratic administration than the democrats had to trust the republicans. Now everyone is supposed to just toss up their hands and say "Oh well ... the democratic faithful have someone they trust. Battle won!".
Why didn't we stop when the generals said the troops would be in danger back in 2004? Why did we push forward when the press secretary said exposing more information would just stir up anger and put the troops in harm's way in 2006? Why were we pushing, in the face of the military saying yet again we were putting the troops at risk, right up to the inauguration to get the torture memos released? What makes this time so different from all the other times we have been willing face that fear in the quest to correct the horrible detour from justice that still has America in a ditch arguing "if torture works, is it really wrong?".
It makes me want to scream "How can you watch the torture debate going on today and even question if the American public needs to again confront the reality of abuse at their own hand?"
I guess my point is, don't forget there are two sides to every story. I genuinely believe having the photos released is of importance to justice and the American soul. Obama may have very sound policy reasons - be it wanting his big "Islamic World" speech to go unmarred, not wanting to politically defend going against his generals, genuine concern for the troops, or a combination of reasons. But he needs to know that the American people are unwavering in our demand for accountability.
These are not normal times. We are in the shadow of great betrayal. Many of those who betrayed us are still very much walking the corridors of power, often in positions of high authority. This is true in finance as well as the military. It is the double-edged sword of Obama's bipartisan gamble. It's pointless to debate if the strategy was worth it, it's the course we are on. So it is not a foregone conclusion that everyone holding a position of authority in Obama's administration buys into, or is even necessarily working toward, his objectives.
Many people have created strawmen of media fetish and torture-porn that disrespect the strength of conviction in those who feel it is important to disclose the photos for the purposes of justice. The official explanation of torture employed by our military in Iraq is unsustainable in face of the facts already exposed. There are holes in the explanations and obvious gaps in accountability. The belief this issue is being addressed by the democratic leadership is largely defined by speculation over what has not been ruled out completely, or simple blind faith.
Congress responds based on public questions and popular demand for accountability - usually shouted to get over the din of special interest lobbyists. The only reason anybody has been held accountable to date is because Americans have fought to expose the abuses and officials have been forced to acknowledge and respond. If the questions had not been forced, those who now argue "we know it happened ... isn't that enough?" wouldn't even know it happened. A handful of low-ranking foot soldiers have been convicted, and no officer has officially been acknowledged as having participated. The official statement from Obama is that the Iraqi abuses were carried out by a mere few individuals. A couple of scapegoats rotting in a military prison is not justice in this instance.
Soldiers have risked everything to come forward - and some paid a high price of ostracization and fear of violence. FBI and CIA agents faced legal sanction and the disdain of their peers, often effectively ending their careers to come forward. Still others have risked exposure providing crucial details to organizations like Human Rights Watch and even the oft maligned New York Times. The ACLU has fought tirelessly to free crucial memos and reports through FOIA requests - and they will burn countless additional resources seeing through the process that Obama had promised them, just last week, would be curtailed.
Through the entire journey there has been an endless drumbeat: "By exposing the wrongdoing you are putting the troops in danger. You are putting fellow Americans at risk".
The people who put themselves on the line to expose what little we know so far weren't democrats. They weren't republicans. They didn't stand up, speak out, dig deeper, for partisan gain. They did it for America. They took the accusations of working against America and putting their colleagues at risk and did the right thing. Despite the drumbeat. Many have no more reason to trust a democratic administration than the democrats had to trust the republicans. Now everyone is supposed to just toss up their hands and say "Oh well ... the democratic faithful have someone they trust. Battle won!".
Why didn't we stop when the generals said the troops would be in danger back in 2004? Why did we push forward when the press secretary said exposing more information would just stir up anger and put the troops in harm's way in 2006? Why were we pushing, in the face of the military saying yet again we were putting the troops at risk, right up to the inauguration to get the torture memos released? What makes this time so different from all the other times we have been willing face that fear in the quest to correct the horrible detour from justice that still has America in a ditch arguing "if torture works, is it really wrong?".
It makes me want to scream "How can you watch the torture debate going on today and even question if the American public needs to again confront the reality of abuse at their own hand?"
I guess my point is, don't forget there are two sides to every story. I genuinely believe having the photos released is of importance to justice and the American soul. Obama may have very sound policy reasons - be it wanting his big "Islamic World" speech to go unmarred, not wanting to politically defend going against his generals, genuine concern for the troops, or a combination of reasons. But he needs to know that the American people are unwavering in our demand for accountability.
Advertisement
Those who contend we should suppress the photographic evidence of torture beg the question of whether we should have suppressed the evidence of the My Lai massacre? Certainly the prosecution of Lt. Calley did little to 'protect' US troops in the field in Vietnam. Yet the publication and pursuit of prosecution helped lead to a national consensus that our prosecution of the war in SE Asia was not only ineffective, but morally bankrupt. In turn that lead to the painful, (to some), withdrawal from a failed policy. The truth will come out, and the sooner it does, we may more accurately be able to assess the material and moral disaster called foreign 'policy' during the Bush43 years and set a new and more effective course for our international relations. Rec'd.
May 16, 2009 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps that's the real motive behind suppression of the evidence. Not doing so will drastically impair the CheneyBurtons' profit forecast for the immediate future.
May 16, 2009 3:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've become convinced the whole thing is related to McChrystal ... the generals looking out for their own. Putting him in charge of Afghanistan really undercuts Obama's moral authority on detainee abuse.
At the very heart I'll bet you are right, the point is to insure the military contractors are well fed - which means keeping their connected generals feeding the contracts. They can't very well do that if they lose their commands for directly authorizing torture.
I do not trust our military command. We watched Cheney (I'm just bypassing Bush these days ... kind of like Cheney did himself) purge everyone who didn't buy his philosophy. Gates too has lost my confidence(what little had in the first place).
May 16, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great point!
May 16, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am one of those who is calling for the non-release of the new pictures. I'm also one of those who is calling for justice to be done as regards torture at the hands of Americans. I think you can be both.
I started a thread on this issue yesterday, so I won't go into my reasons here, but it might surprise you to know that I was fully supportive when the Abu Ghraib pictures were released. They were shocking and sickening, but they needed to be out there in order for us to understand the full gravity of those abuses. We're still seeing those pictures and they're still shocking to most of us.
But these new pictures will add nothing to the dialogue, and will, in my opinion, only serve to inflame. We don't need them to understand how truly evil the Bush policies were. At this point, they're gratuitous, and will do nothing to strengthen the argument. That's the difference.
May 16, 2009 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
KGB, I forgot to thank you for this fine post. There really is a lot of food for thought here.
May 16, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. I really appreciate your contribution to the discussion as well.
May 16, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The photos are not gratuitious as long as we pretend that the U.S. military- which is the fetishized object of American discourse- is somehow not subject to systematic corruption and misuse.
But it is in the interest of no American President to raise doubts about this, or about the question of whether the Presidency itself- and I am not talking about Obama in particular- is a tainted office, operating beyond oversight in a manner which invites abuse.
May 16, 2009 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
diachronic, I'm not saying and have never said that the facts should not come out. I am saying that these pictures don't need to be laid out for public consumption. They should be used as evidence in our courts of law, not as the gift that keeps on giving for the media. And that's exactly what they'll become.
May 16, 2009 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your attitude toward the first photos doesn't surprise me at all. I was far less convinced at the time. By asserting my own opinion, my point isn't to put yours down - but I really do strongly disagree. I'm quite sure we all seek the same thing in the end.
If the benefit of releasing the photos were merely to illicit shock or revulsion, the concept that the photos already released serve the purpose might make more sense to me. I think you misunderstand what I'm saying the American people need to confront. We can't just view the pictures in the frame of "torture porn" - valued for shock and titillation caused by the novelty of the specific abuse shown. In fact it is just that frame wider disclosure is necessary to combat.
The American people need to confront the real abuse in Iraq. Not as the sensational anomaly, but as the overwhelmingly mind numbing pervasive and systemic reality of a top-down institutionalized policy of abuse. A snapshot that can be easily dismissed as an isolated action by a few bad apples simply does not, and never will, illustrate the reality of what was done in Iraq.
May 16, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Although I don't necessarily agree with your opinions kgb as I side with Ramona and Deanie Milla on this, I respect them and i'm glad you brought your opinions to the table for all of us to think about. This is debate, hearing both sides of the discussion on this. We've heard the side of the people who believe the President should release the photos and the others who think we shouldn't (at least not right now to the public or just given out to the judge for a court case on this etc.). This is a good healthy debate we've been having on this the past few days.
Have a good day kgb.
May 16, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I think people are pretty set in their opinions at this point. Thanks for entertaining my perspective.
Peace.
May 16, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
No problem, anytimetime kgb.
May 16, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I have changed my mind about this. See below. I previously agreed that it wasn't worth it to inflame opinion. Now I believe that if we do the right thing, we can show our dirty laundry.
May 16, 2009 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
KGB, another fine exposition. Well drafted and argued.
I would just asoon let it ride for a year with the immediate release of a few pictures at different internment camps.
Good post.
May 16, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks! McChrystal has me feeling a sense of urgency. I don't think the issue is going lie for a year before it gets nasty. To be melodramatic, I see dark forces gathering power.
IMO the longer this festers the more it's going to burn Obama when it ultimately bursts into the light. If he allows the military to proceed under his administration without addressing the officers who ordered torture, he will increasingly be called on to personally endorse them. At that point when they are exposed, Obama will be culpable in their actions. No amount of "it happened before he was president" will matter. He's CIC now, if a torturer gets promoted instead of prosecuted - it will be at his direction. Will that be the key to getting the Obama faithful to agree some torture really is OK?
Hope I'm wrong. I've always been a bit conspiracy minded.
May 16, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
One other point, my understanding was that this release was only 2 batches of 21 and 28 photos, and was supposed to clear the way to catalog and ultimately release of a couple hundred more. I don't think the content is distributed like you suggest. I like the idea of a few photos from each camp ... it doesn't meet what I see as the real objective but would likely change the debate right under Cheney's feet.
I'm looking for a few specific photos from Cropper ... and I believe there's Cropper stuff in the release. So this batch is of interest to me. I don't think there will be anything particularly disturbing in the group (in relation to what has already been exposed).
May 16, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post KGB999!
May 16, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
How does publication of the pics actually serve justice? It doesn't serve legal justice (the pics could be used as needed to support prosecution of any alleged specific crimes), so you must be thinking of some other vague justice. Social justice? Political justice? What?
You seek "accountability". From whom about what exactly and in just how much detail? How do these pics serve this end and what costs are you glossing over when you talking about "torture-porn"?
No, you haven't begun to make a rational case for release of the pics now.
"don't forget there are two sides to every story"
If only authors would keep this in mind and in print as well, more often. There are often more than two sides, btw. We cannot easily do justice to all of them, much less all at once. But practicing what we preach, and justifying it rationally might be a good start.
May 16, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thirty or fifty years from now, some Islamic Fundamentalist group will remind their followers of the atrocities of 2000 –2009.
The United States Government will of course call these radicals liars. What proof do you have?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest
"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" is a philosophical riddle that raises questions regarding OBSERVATION and KNOWLEDGE OF REALITY.
George Berkeley was a philosopher who created and promoted a theory he called "immaterialism" later referred to as "subjective idealism". His dictum was "Esse est percipi" - "To be is to be perceived".[1] He talked of objects ceasing to exist once there was nobody around to perceive them.
If no one observed or had pictures of torture, did it really occur?
Holocaust deniers and torture deniers only need time to pass and then their credibility increases.
May 16, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
And if the record shows that we prosecuted those who did the crimes, their point will be moot. It all lies in what we do about this. If we let it go, we deserve it. These were atrocities, and we are supposed to be better than that.
BTW, what will our "fundamentalists" be screaming? Down with health care!? Kill the muslims!? Bring on the Rapture!?
May 16, 2009 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're correct; our homegrown fundamentalists can be as bad or worse.
As I remember the election of G Bush, he was a known alcoholic, a partier, a drug user, but hey, "he said he believed in Jesus”. As though that made him something to be adored. “He say's he is”. Suckers.
http://mindprod.com/politics/bushismsdrinking.html
Most of the wars of our Century were fought by so called Christians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler's_Pope
May 16, 2009 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I personally am glad this is going to be a court decision. I know people feel strongly on both sides. I haven't gotten into the fray much because I really like it being a decision of our third branch of government. Based upon principles that have to be openly and transparently articulated. Signed. Sealed. And delivered. For posterity.
There's been way too much politicization in the past 8 years. (ok, more) It's not good for the country to be so polarized. And this issue is polarizing.
I know the decision could go either way. Or the courts could decide on a slow-release schedule.
To my mind there are far more important debates we should be having. And I'd be happier to shift some of them to the Justice System as well. Torture being one big one.
I doubt any court decision will do more than delay the inevitable surfacing of the photos. But frankly, I think we can't delay much longer initiating a full investigation of what the photos point to - torture - widespread, endorsed at the highest levels of our government, a crime of monumental proportions - against our held under our "protection," and against ourselves.
May 16, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post, by the way!
May 16, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
If torture were being treated for what it is -- a crime that is being investigated and will be punished -- the pictures would have little impact. The fact that those who approved of the torture, and those who carried it out are getting off is the only reason that the pictures put our soldiers in greater harm.
As long as we condone what the pictures depict, those same pictures will damn us. IF we decide to take these crimes seriously, and show that to the world, it will prove that we are who we say we are...a country of laws; a country that treats every person as an equal, including the rich and famous.
May 16, 2009 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink