Matt Welch wonders why the Pentagon won't share its stash, man.
Reason Magazine
Most Popular Stories
- Fox Business Network Cancels Judge Andrew Napolitano's Freedom Watch (2.9)
- It’s Enough to Literally Make Your Head Explode (2.3)
- The Second Amendment Cases the Supreme Court Doesn't Want to Hear (2.9)
- Breitbart on libertarians in 2012 (2.11)
- One Possible Reason There Are So Few Liberals, Starring Jonathan Chait. And Some Stuff About Tax Progressivity. (2.10)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Romney Most Electable Candidate, Yet Gingrich in Statistical Tie Among GOP Voters (1.31)
- Explaining Newt’s Second Surge (1.26)
- George Washington Would Beat Out Romney as Richest President; John Kerry Would Have, Too (1.25)
- New Poll: Americans Aren't Ready for Another War (1.20)
- 2012 Election Match Up: Romney Wins, Paul Might (1.13)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
|3.31.05 @ 4:04PM|#
Harmless hazing rituals are always kept secret. Don't you know that?
Warren|3.31.05 @ 4:09PM|#
They haven't burried the story yet. It still has legs. I'm convinced that it goes all the way to the oval office, and I'm praying everyone involved burns for it.
|3.31.05 @ 4:15PM|#
There's a perfectly innocent explanation for this.***************************************************** *************************************** ******************************************** ******************************************* ************** and *********************************** pictures ************************* maybe **********************law ************************* Terrorists ************************* not *************************. Probable ********************,********************************** innocent ****************;***************************. In conclusion, ******************************************************* ********************************* national security.**************************.
[Deleted content classified top secret]
|3.31.05 @ 4:18PM|#
Let me just cut and paste my post from today's Gitmo thread, it will be quicker:
"The detainees are towelheads, thus their lives are of no consequence.
That, in a nutshell, is the unvarnished position of the Bush Adminstration, which many Americans share.
Being the new chosen people means never having to say you're sorry."
|3.31.05 @ 4:18PM|#
I should also add that ************************** and *******************************************. Thank-*** for **** attention to this matter.
[Deleted content classified top secret.]
|3.31.05 @ 7:08PM|#
Could somebody in the know outline the legal steps this might go through, and perhaps give a guess as to whether Jaffer and the ACLU will prevail?
|3.31.05 @ 7:46PM|#
Why do you want to see the pictures?
We know the basic content (horrifying abuse).
Does the severity of the acts shown in the pictures somehow make it more likely that the administration was complicit in the abuse?
Or is this merely an attempt to use the visceral images to get people to respond emotionally and not rationally so that the administration can be tarred and feathered and run out of town?
Byna, justs wants to know your intentions.
|3.31.05 @ 8:56PM|#
We know the basic content (horrifying abuse).
Some people have maintained that there was no horrifying abuse, that it was all within acceptable bounds. I think it's worthwhile to release the pictures if they disabuse people of that notion.
Why does that matter? Well, some would say that a well-informed public is a good thing.
|3.31.05 @ 10:00PM|#
i'd settle for a restraining order against using terms like "freedom" for the participants.
|3.31.05 @ 11:23PM|#
Oh, come on, man.
"They haven't burried the story yet. It still has legs. [b]I'm convinced that it goes all the way to the oval office, and I'm praying everyone involved burns for it.[/b]"
Somebody's been listening to too much sports-talk radio.
Try this:
"I'm convinced that it WILL GO all the way to the Oval Office..."