White House Double Standard
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in The War On TerrorismSo it seems they want to have their cake and eat it too and then try to hide the fact that they ate cake in the first place, even though they have crumbs all over your face and everybody saw them ask for unlimited cakes just a couple of days ago.
More from Editor And Publisher:
Yesterday, news emerged that lawyers for the Pentagon had refused to cooperate with a federal judge’s order to release dozens of unseen photographs and videos from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq by Saturday. The photos were among thousands turned over by the key “whistleblowerâ€Â? in the scandal, Specialist Joseph M. Darby. Just a few that were released to the press sparked the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal last year, and the video images are said to be even more shocking.The Pentagon lawyers said in a letter sent to the federal court in Manhattan that they would file a sealed brief explaining their reasons for not turning over the material. They had been ordered to do so by a federal judge in response to a FOIA lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU accused the government Friday of putting another legal roadblock in the way of its bid to allow the public to see the images of the prisoner abuse scandal.
One Pentagon lawyer has argued that they should not be released because they would only add to the humiliation of the prisoners. But the ACLU has said the faces of the victims can easily be “redacted.”
Rewind to last year when the photos and videos came to light. At that time, Donald Rumsfeld said that the remaining images and videos of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal showed “acts that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman.” This phrase sounds familiar because it’s the same language that’s in a new amendment to the defense budget, which the White House says it will oppose because it would limit their ability to protect American’s freedom. In fact, the amendment limits military and intelligence personnel from “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.” I think it’s safe to assume the amendment would bar (as Rumsfeld put it) “blatantly sadistic” acts too.
Now the Pentagon (via the White House) are blocking the release of the Abu Ghraib images because they think they’ll do too much damage to our credibility in the WOT. And yet they’ll keep saying they need a blank check for torture.
And then this from Lindsey Graham last year.
“’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.’
People, we cannot be like them, no matter how much we think it’s going to “help” us.
The cost to Democracy is too great.
This entry was posted on Sunday, July 24th, 2005 and is filed under The War On Terrorism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 24th, 2005 at 10:34 pm
The only reason that they are fighting to get pics and vids released is to use them as anti-Iraq occupation propaganda. If there was a legitimate reason for them to move into the pubic domain, I would support it. I do not see any reason for them to be released now.
Maybe we should set a date for them to go public. How about 5 years? By then, the ACLU could still sue AND the DOD won’t be damaged in the middle of the WOT.
July 25th, 2005 at 12:56 am
I agree that these images/videos are going to used as anti-war fodder.
But in 5 years I think this footage would do more damage than good. We might as well get this out now closer to the event than later. It’s still going to be all over the Internet and the news 5 years from now. Delaying images and videos that display torture for any more time is only going to widen the gap. If Rumsfeld and Graham have already told the world what they contain, the world will be waiting because the WOT will still be going on.
In any event, use this knowledge to bolster your support: the date was already set by a federal Judge. That means this judge was approved by Congress. And he thinks the public has the right to see these photos. That’s Democracy.
July 25th, 2005 at 4:13 pm
I have a few questions regarding this, as I’m not all that familiar with the case in question.
1. Is it the law that the DOD has to release the photos. I’m not talking about the judges decision here, the judge should be applying the law as it stands, so what is the law that the judge is applying here? FOIA?
Due to all the anger over judicial decisions here I think it’s prudent to ask whether the judge is applying law or applying sentiment, which might make sense to some people, but is not the judge’s job.
2. In the post you have a quote from Rep Graham talking about “rape and murder.” What context is that in? What was Graham talking about? Was he talking about the terrorists and what they are doing, and how we shouldn’t be like them, or is he talking about American run prisons and detention camps? That’s how it sounds from the order that you put it in the post, so I’m just wondering. After all I’m pretty sure there hasn’t been any rape and murder at Gitmo or Abu Graib.
Lastly, I think you might be getting a bit hard on the Republicans for opposing the language in the bill. Like many bills with amendments hanging off them like remoras on a great white shark, the opposition might be coming from something more obscure.
I would look at the statement you quoted from the amendment and say that I would oppose cruel and inhuman, but not necessarily “degrading” if it was being used to interrogate terrorists.
How do you define all those things also, it’s not just enough to say “Cruel and Inhuman” but you must draw lines saying this is, and this isn’t, inhuman treatment.
I think as a conservative, I agreed that the treatment at Abu Graib was over the top, cruel at least. But it’s still not provent that this was any systematic treatment of prisoners involving interrogation techniques. The tapes have been seen by those in authority, the trials have been held and the people involved have been sentenced, for the most part.
But unless you can prove, with the tapes or without, that the problem was systematic and there are higher ups in the administration or the pentagon who where OKing this stuff for use, I don’t see the reason why they need to see the light of day.
I have no problem believing that there are many individual Americans who are capable of doing some pretty stupid and ugly things. But I agree with the opinions that releasing the tapes now would only help the terrorists with their media campaign and wouldn’t do anything to help our image or root out systematic problems in our military or government.
July 25th, 2005 at 4:33 pm
Richard, to answer:
I don’t know the exact wording of the law (could a legal scholar help me out with this one), but a federal court order is a federal court order and they’re essentially violating it.
Bad news. The pics and vids are from Abu Ghraib. That’s why this is so heartbreaking.
You’re right, this could be the sticking point, but I don’t really think it is. I could be wrong, though. Degrading in this context I think means torture of a sexual nature, like being stripped naked or any number of tactics not covered by the military standards for interrogation.
Exactly. So why is the Administration asking for these same tactics to be considered fair game for interrogations? Remember, they want a blank check. Why? Because they think it’ll keep America safer? Well, a blank check is going to make another Abu Ghraib happen and that’s not going to make us any safer.
The only way to root out the problem is to say specifically that these tactics are wrong. Again, I put it to you bluntly, why won’t the Administration do that?
And to the point that this will hurt us…yes, it will. But when is a good time for stuff like this to come out? Somebody proposed 5 years. But again, I think our leaders should follow the law and accept the consequences. That’s all. Let’s just get this over with sooner rather than later because I have a feeling that this War On Terrorism (WOT) is going to be going on for a long, long time.
One last point, I think that if the photos/vids are released now, this will be seen as ONE incident at the start of the WOT when our military is on edge and doing stupid things. Imagine the WOT is going well in five years, and then the world is reminded again of Abu Ghraib. Is that a scenario you really want? I certainly don’t and I’d rather pull the band-aid off all at once then slowly pull it off over the course of years.
July 25th, 2005 at 9:07 pm
These are quotes from Rumsfeld and Graham (I got the quotes online, but unless someone can point out that they’ve been doctored I’m going to assume they’re true):
`There are a lot more photographs and videos that exist,” Rumsfeld testified before Congress. “If these are released to the public, obviously it’s going to make matters worse. That’s just a fact.” The unreleased images show American soldiers beating one prisoner almost to death, apparently raping a female prisoner, acting inappropriately with a dead body, and taping Iraqi guards raping young boys, according to NBC News.
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said the scandal is “going to get worse” and warned that the most “disturbing” revelations haven’t yet been made public. “The American public needs to understand, we’re talking about rape and murder here,” he said. “We’re not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience; we’re talking about rape and murder and some very serious charges.”
I think it’s pretty clear what they’re talking about. Perhaps we should think more about the reaction in the US than in Arab countries. These reports have circulated for some time, and the administration has effectively brushed them off. I remember Bush declaring Abu Ghraib as the work of a few misguided individuals right after the scandal broke, and thinking to myself “How do you know? They haven’t even investigated it yet.” Until the videos are released, there won’t be the outcry in this country to get to the bottom of the whole situation and determine who’s responsible. The administration has already used the WOT as an excuse for doing just about whatever they please, with precious little congressional oversight. We’re already fighting a war in an Arab country. The Arabs being mad at us is not the overriding concern here. We’ve seen during other times of national emergency how easy it is to give in to our baser natures, and betray the things that make our country great. We must vigilantly guard against this, no matter how painful.
And for the record, I am opposed to the war, but I have no illusions about Abu Ghraib ending the war. I just think it’s important to deal with and not sweep it under the rug.
July 26th, 2005 at 11:39 am
Hmmm. I would agree with the sentiments of the last commenter, in that it is important to deal with it and not sweep it under the rug.
I also thank Justin for answering my comments earlier.
I am mistaken then, that there was actual rape in Abu Graib according to the unreleased video and pictures, although “murder” doesn’t appear in the last commenters quotes (’almost’ beating someone to death: semantics I guess). It’s a pretty sad state of affairs. But I ask again: weren’t these unreleased materials used in the trials at all? haven’t all the people involved been prosecuted to some extent?
And if that’s the case and it’s not systematic, I still don’t think it’s worth making them public. What’s needed now is discussion on how we stop this sort of thing from happening.
Justin: I don’t know all the ins and outs of why the administration is opposing the bill in question. This all gets pretty confusing with the legal arguments about what should constitute an OK interrogation technique, and how a simple bill with general language can cause those waters to muddy even further. Lets just say for now that I hear you that the administration is appearing to want to leave the door open for degrading treatment of prisoners, but it might be more complicated than that.
Of special note: The NY Times seems to have corrected their article about the Bush Administration refusing to release the tapes and pictures by court order. It seems that the court order was for the blocking out of identifying images in the tapes, not to release the tapes. The Defense Department was not ordered to release the tapes.
That seems like a pretty big correction. Doesn’t that kind of destroy the entire point of the article? The original article title was: “Government Defies Order to Release Iraq Abuse Photos.” That’s not a correction, that’s a retraction!
August 31st, 2005 at 12:07 am
[...] I’ve called for this before, and now the ACLU is trying to make sure this gets this out in the open, as it already should have been nearly a month ago. Basically, the government has violated a court order to release the photos/videos. [...]
February 15th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
[...] Judge Orders Release Of Abu Ghraib PhotosRemember people, these photos are going to come out sooner…White House Double StandardSo it seems they want to have their cake and…Release The Abu Ghraib Photos/VideosCorrection: Sept. 1 I completely missed this correction the New York…Saddam’s Attorneys Use Abu Ghraib To Rebut Torture VictimDoes any of this sound familiar?BAGHDAD — An unnamed woman,…Defense Bill Shelved Amid Torture Amendment ControversySenate Republicans tried to vote for cloture, which would have…Bush Gives Clue To SCOTUS NomineeFrom the AP: In his weekly radio address, Bush said…Economist On US’s Torture PolicyIn a great editorial entitled “How to lose friends and…Chickenhawk ReduxNo, it’s not the latest MRE. Neptunus Lex (Navy fighter…Worth 1,000 WordsSo how are we doing in Iraq? What are those…Yon’s LatestMichael Yon’s latest post from Mosul is up. And truly,… _uacct = “UA-72836-1″; urchinTracker(); [...]