Pentagon Censorship and Hypocrisy!!!!

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Pentagon Won't Release More Abuse Photos

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Bush administration lawyers are advising the Pentagon not to publicly release any more photographs of Iraqi prisoners being abused by U.S. soldiers, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said at the outset of a hastily arranged visit to Iraq aimed at containing the abuse scandal.

"As far as I'm concerned, I'd be happy to release them all to the public and to get it behind us," Rumsfeld told reporters traveling with him from Washington. "But at the present time I don't know anyone in the legal shop in any element of the government that is recommending that."

The government lawyers argue that releasing such materials would violate a Geneva Convention stricture against presenting images of prisoners that could be construed as degrading, Rumsfeld said en route to the Iraqi capital on a trip that was not announced in advance due to security concerns.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040513/ap_on_re_mi...

*Now that Dumsfeld knows that he can't be fired or impeached he is flippin' the bird to the world. Bushco can get away with anything because the Oligarchy has the power to knock down any criminal acts of the NeoFascists. The Congress and Courts have no power and Amerika is a Dictatorship

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 907 • Replies: 18

No top replies

You're really slipping here. You need three more exclamation points in the title, and you failed to call George W. Bush the Antichrist. It seems you're backsliding and becoming a moderate.

We need more feverish ranting and raving from our left-wingers here or it won't be entertaining any more. YOU'RE JUST NOT TRYING HARD ENOUGH DAMMIT!!!!!!

0 Replies

pistoff,
be careful.Your hypocrisy is showing.
If the Pentagon does release ALL of the photo's and video's,you will then scream about the violation of peoples right to a fair trial.
Remember,there are several criminal and administrative investigations going on,and those pictures are evidence.
So,if the govt releases them,you will then scrm about that,because it might cause someone to not get a fair trial.
So,you tell us,should those pic's be released and compromise someones right to a fair trial,or should they be kept classified till after any trial?
You decide.

0 Replies

Pistoff's pissedoffedness is valid. To believe that Rumsfeld is doing this for the stated legal reasons (though they are valid in themselves) is simply not credible. This is all information hurtful to the administration, and thus to be suppressed.

Photos could be released with identifying features (faces, etc) blacked out.

0 Replies

Again, to what end? WHY do we need to see the pictures? Is Pistoff NOT pistoff enough? Is there some new information in the pictures showing that prisoners were abused? Is it going to somehow change anyones opinion that wasn't changed in the first round of pictures released?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

To believe that Rumsfeld is doing this for the stated legal reasons (though they are valid in themselves) is simply not credible.

lmao This needs to be highlighted as the "Doublespeak of the Day".

The legal reason given are valid but using that reson isn't credible?

I understand what you meant here blatham but the word choice is just a bit out of synch. Wink

0 Replies

pistoff:

From everything I've read, it wasn't the horrific images of human rights abuses and physical torture that clamped the final fist of censorship down on the Abu Ghraib photos release.

It was the pornographic images that made the final decision.

America, puritantical to her core, drew the line at the images of male soldiers having sex with female soldiers. Evidently, Private First Class Lynndie England "did" half the US military at Abu Ghraib and it was a site deemed unacceptable to the Pentagon.

Having seen Lynndie England, maybe the Pentagon was correct?

0 Replies

fishin

Yes, sometimes brain and pen falter, and I write some language that only Venutians might comprehend. I'm not sure if I would be better served by a good editor or a good lay...it seems about equal. I accept the award, humbly.

McG

Whether we ought to see more photos is another question. And if it were my decision, I don't know what I'd do.

On the one hand, the negatives which arises from publication is increase in hatred against the US/occupation/war and thus more ammo for those bad guys in al Qaeda recruitment, and more reasons for the international community to consider that the US has gone somewhat mad. Neither are good consequences.

On the other hand, they may well get out somewhere else.

The positives for further release, in my view, are related to discrediting a uniquely dangerous, even mad, administration and ideology.

In the middle of a disaster, easy solutions aren't available.

0 Replies

I'll toss this here...Is torture against the law...what does uncle sam have to say about it...

http://slate.msn.com/id/2100460/

0 Replies

The head guy at the base where intelligence officer are trained (Fort Huachuca here in Arizona) said he was disgusted at the pictures that came from the prison. And I've heard an interview with one of the soldiers there who said they are trained not to abuse people that way. So I would have to say that yeah, torture is not condoned if not strictly illegal (and I didn't read that link because I have to leave now).

0 Replies

You have to admire Rumsfeld

He allows US military personnel to torture prisoners in breach of the Geneva Conventions, but then prevents disclosure of prisoners being tortured as this would be in violation of their human rights and against the Geneva Convention.

0 Replies

Evidently, Private First Class Lynndie England "did" half the US military at Abu Ghraib. infowarrior

Oh honey, are our boys that desperate?

Deecups has seen Missy Lynndie and it's not pretty.

0 Replies

As an aside, why the continued reference to yourself in the third person?

0 Replies

blatham:

Minimum Standards for the Treatment of Prisoners

Adopted by the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held at Geneva in 1955, and approved by the Economic and Social Council by its resolution 663 C (XXIV) of 31 July 1957 and 2076 (LXII) of 13 May 1977

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_comp34.htm

The USA is so busted on this one!

0 Replies

thanks info!

0 Replies

No Male Word for Slut
Personaly, i find the reference to England's looks a little beside the point. Sure, she's no Lynch Variety Cupcake - and so what if she "did" the entire regiment? Her sexual nature is likely unconnected to the tortures that went on there. It's entirely possible that an argument could be made that there is a connection - that the photos of her having sex with soldiers, and the smiling gestures at nude iraquis - were perhaps motivated out of a related desire to be accepted and/or approved of. Or, perhaps she IS just kinky and a maybe little sadistic. Who knows?

But 'Slut' is not concurrent with 'torture', and i think her sexual escapades are more her buisness than ours. There has been of course no attention put on the male soldier who sodomized a prisoner with a chemical light 's moral and sexual leanings or past. OR his looks, for that matter.

I personaly think the US Army should be pleased with Ms. England. At least this scandal involves heterosexual intercourse, and not the countless numbers of American soldiers likely buggering eachother senseless, for lack of a girl like Lynndie.

0 Replies

ps.

happy to be here Very Happy

0 Replies

Absurd
The photos are at the Pentagon. The trials will be done by the Military. Predjucial photos? Get real, eh?

The photos depicts more than "humiliation" tactics. That is why they don't want them released. The unreleased photos depict war crimes, sanctioned by the US Military and those hired civi guns. The Prison Torture was not confined to one facility. The attention is on one facilty only because photos were uncovered there. The Cover-up of widespread criminal activity which was policy is being covered up.

0 Replies

welcome foxholeatheist...though I'm hoping, after reading the final sentence of your post, that if I ever find myself in a foxhole, you'll be in another one.

0 Replies

Pentagon Censorship and Hypocrisy!!!!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know