Can you believe what this idiot GOP Sen. said?

Now, of course, you're not suggesting that liberals would be sympathetic to an apologist for pedophilia, are you?

...it would be interesting to note that thats exactly the way the National Review argued the topic - and in surprising great detail too!

Some photos, like those taken at Abu Ghraib, can be used to reveal unacceptable behavior by the military. Others might be used (intentionally or not) to reveal military secrets. Others still may be used to convey gruesome images of war that would serve only puerile or perverse interests.

It is not the job of the military to provide us with 138,000 freelance reporters in Iraq.

Stopped getting updates . . . hope this causes them to return.

Finn d'Abuzz writes

Quote:

Some photos, like those taken at Abu Ghraib, can be used to reveal unacceptable behavior by the military. Others might be used (intentionally or not) to reveal military secrets. Others still may be used to convey gruesome images of war that would serve only puerile or perverse interests.

It is not the job of the military to provide us with 138,000 freelance reporters in Iraq.

I wonder why the military did not even think of banning cameras from soldiers for fear of exposing military secrets when Geraldo Rivera was kicked out of Iraq for revealing a military secret in a live Fox TV broadcast. Why didn't it cross their minds that soldiers with cameras can do the same thing as Geraldo Rivera? Why did they wait to ban the cameras until after the military abuse photos where revealed to the public? The military knew of the photos since January of 2004. Why did they wait until now?

Apparently we don't need soldiers acting as freelance reporters to reveal military secrets. We only need Fox reporters like Rivera to do just that.

No creativity is required because there is, essentially, no alternate reason. The prohibition of cameras is an attempt to prevent the transmission of images from members of the military in Iraq. You have cast it in terms that suggest it is a sinister plot to hide terrible truths from the American people. It may be, but that it not the only logical conclusion. First, we have to realize that the photos taken at Abu Ghraib were not snapped for the purposes of revealing the goings on to the American public. If soldiers are foolish enough to take those photos, they are liable to take photos of anything that strikes their fancy. Some photos, like those taken at Abu Ghraib, can be used to reveal unacceptable behavior by the military. Others might be used (intentionally or not) to reveal military secrets. Others still may be used to convey gruesome images of war that would serve only puerile or perverse interests. The military isn't a force of fighting free lance photographers.

Since I am not a member of Rumsfeld's staff (NEWS ALERT!) I can't answer your question, but it may be that at the time the Pentagon didn't realize how snapshot happy its soldiers might be.

Quote:

Since I am not a member of Rumsfeld's staff (NEWS ALERT!) I can't answer your question, but it may be that at the time the Pentagon didn't realize how snapshot happy its soldiers might be.

Well, you're from Dallas, which automatically entails ebola-like republicoidal brain infection and accounts for half of what you write (I'm an optimist, and prefer to see you as half-balanced rather than the more depressing alternative).

"It may be the Pentagon and Rummie et all did not realize how snapshot happy the soldiers would be". Kodak moments...precious.

It is my understanding that some (and I don't know how many) of the photographs taken inside Abu Ghraib were to be shown to other prisoners during interrogation as threats illustrating what could happen to them if they did not cooperate, or in case where the faces were shown for black mail. In this case the threats would be that the photo's would be sent to family members if the prisoner did not cooperate.

Some of the photographs were for personal use but it is my understanding many of them were part of the interrogation/torture process.

blatham wrote:

Quote:

Since I am not a member of Rumsfeld's staff (NEWS ALERT!) I can't answer your question, but it may be that at the time the Pentagon didn't realize how snapshot happy its soldiers might be.

Well, you're from Dallas, which automatically entails ebola-like republicoidal brain infection and accounts for half of what you write (I'm an optimist, and prefer to see you as half-balanced rather than the more depressing alternative).

"It may be the Pentagon and Rummie et all did not realize how snapshot happy the soldiers would be". Kodak moments...precious.

No, I'm located in Dallas. I'm from New York, which automatically entails an arrogant confidence in my positions. Are you from Toronto? If so, that would explain virtually 100% of what you write.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

blatham wrote:

Quote:

Since I am not a member of Rumsfeld's staff (NEWS ALERT!) I can't answer your question, but it may be that at the time the Pentagon didn't realize how snapshot happy its soldiers might be.

Well, you're from Dallas, which automatically entails ebola-like republicoidal brain infection and accounts for half of what you write (I'm an optimist, and prefer to see you as half-balanced rather than the more depressing alternative).

"It may be the Pentagon and Rummie et all did not realize how snapshot happy the soldiers would be". Kodak moments...precious.

No, I'm located in Dallas. I'm from New York, which automatically entails an arrogant confidence in my positions. Are you from Toronto? If so, that would explain virtually 100% of what you write.

But I'm not. Born and raised as a Mennonite in Chilliwack, then a smallish farming community some 60 miles up The Mighty Fraser from Vancouver. By 20, my blonde hair reached near my waist and I was startlingly beautiful when naked. I moved to Vancouver at that period and attended the University of BC socially for a short time. This exceptionally beautiful liberal city has been my home ever since.

New York to Dallas. Did you notice, arriving in Dallas, that there was no Statue of Liberty to greet you? Possibly you missed this clue.

Well, perhaps you weren't startlingly beautiful when naked. I can only imagine the psychological consequences of that.

We Mennonites are pacifists. For us, dairy cows exemplify the upper reaches of permissable aggression. We like books too. Thus I'm leaning towards the theory that your Mexican wife has improved you.

Perhaps much is explainable in the spikey hair thing. This clearly suggests you are out of that tail end of my generation who tried to find God through solvents.

the disclosures that the military's own interrogators had alerted superiors to abuse back then in internal documents has not been previously reported.

At least 20 accounts of mistreatment were included in the documents, according to those interviewed. Some detainees described abuse at other detention facilities before they were transferred to Abu Ghraib, but at least seven incidents said to be cited in the documents took place at the prison, four of them in the area controlled by military intelligence and the site of the notorious abuses depicted in the photographs.