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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

Bad news. The pics and vids are from Abu Ghraib. That’s why this is so heartbreaking.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.