From the Dept. of I Told You So

Lawyers for the Defense Department are refusing* to cooperate with a federal judge's order to release secret photographs and videotapes related to the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal.

The lawyers said in a letter sent to the federal court in Manhattan late Thursday that they would file a sealed brief explaining their reasons for not turning over the material, which they were to have released by Friday. […]

The government has turned over more than 60,000 pages of documents on the treatment of detainees, some containing graphic descriptions of mistreatment. But the material that the judge ordered released -- the ACLU says there are 87 photographs and four videos -- would be the first images released in the suit. The judge said they would be the "best evidence" in the debate about the treatment of Abu Ghraib prisoners.

In the letter sent Thursday, Sean Lane, an assistant U.S. attorney, said that the government was withholding the photographs because they "could result in harm to individuals" and that it would outline the reasons in a sealed brief to the court.

Story here, link via Sploid, my April column on the topic here.

* UPDATE: The New York Times has issued a correction; read about it here.

Comments

[s.a.m.]

Sean Lane, an assistant U.S. attorney, said that the government was withholding the photographs because they "could result in harm to individuals"...

Ok, if the Iraq war is not a quagmire, can we safely say some parts of it are?

[Adam]

The "could result in harm to individuals" is a crappy argument considering that an alternative argument is that these can and will be used as recruiting posters for Zarqawi and bin Laden.

(And when the hell is the ACLU going to get back to defending American liberties? The Iraqis should get their own goddamn civil liberties union.)

[mccleary]

... the government was withholding the photographs because they "could result in harm to individuals"

Can we assume that "harm" here means the potential arrest, prosecution, sentencing, court martial and jail time for the guards with documented involvement in the abuse? Or is Sean Lane trying to say that showing the photographs will bring harm to active US troops? Either way, he's about one step away from Lionel Hutz.

[Tom Crick]

"Concerning the abuses at Abu Gharib, the impact was magnified by the fact that shocking photographs were aired throughout the world in April 2004. Although CENTCOM had publicly addressed the abuses in a press release in January 2004, the photographs remained within the official criminal investigative process. Consequently, the highest levels of command and leadership in the Department of Defense were not adequately informed nor prepared to respond to the Congress and the American public when copies were released by the press."

----Schlesinger Report .pdf p. 15 of 126

I hope the court releases these photographs, so we can make sure that the highest levels of command and leadership in the Department of Defense are adequately informed and prepared to respond to the Congress and the American public.

...Assuming the highest levels of command and leadership in the Department of Defense are ever required to respond to the Congress and the American public regarding this matter, that is.

[Hakluyt]

I wonder if Sean Lane can sleep soundly at night?

[Jennifer]

The only ones that will be harmed are the ones who like to pretend that this is about nothing more serious than nude pyramids and underwear on the head. When/if they see photos of Iraqi women being raped by American soldiers, or Iraqi men being murdered. . . well, they'll probably still make bullshit excuses, but at least they'll have to try a little harder.

[joe]

mccleary,

"Can we assume that "harm" here means the potential arrest, prosecution, sentencing, court martial and jail time for the guards with documented involvement in the abuse?"

Given that the Supreme Court ruled that the potential casting of aspersions at the President constituted a sufficiently serious and irreversible harm as to justify a preliminary injunction in Bush vs. Gore, that argument could well work.

Seriously, you can look it up. The harm that would accrue to the plaintiff if the recount was allowed to procede until the Supremes released their ruling was that people might "cast aspersions" on President Bush.

[bubba]

I suppose it would just be too easy to grant the judge access to the photos and video without submitting them into evidence.

I understand how these photos can and perhaps should influence the judge's thinking, but they should not become recruiting posters. This is the unavoidable downside to a relatively transparent judiciary.

[Skeptikos]

No bubba, this is the downside to an imperial presidency.

If it were a transparent judiciary, we would already have the pictures as evidence.

[Tom Crick]

"I understand how these photos can and perhaps should influence the judge's thinking, but they should not become recruiting posters."

There was another way to avoid having these pictures used as recruitment posters--the DoD leadership could have made sure that the necessary policies and oversight were in place to make sure that such pictures never came into existence in the first place.

...but it's too late for that now.

"This is the unavoidable downside to a relatively transparent judiciary."

I'm tryin' to imagine a situation in which the downside of transparency--in the judiciary or in administrative matters--could possibly outweigh the benefits.

...I'm drawin' a blank.

[Jennifer]

Well, Tom, that just goes to show that you aren't spending enough time watching Fox News.

[Tom Crick]

You got me there Jennifer.

[brooks b]

Jennifer,would you like to be in Iraq when these photos are released?Who benefits from their release?

[Jennifer]

So, Brooks, you're saying that the truth should be withheld unless some clear benefit can be proven?

[brooks b]

I am.In this case the downside to their release is obvious.Lets be realistic,we are at war.Why should we arm the enemy?

[Tom Crick]

"Who benefits from their release?"

Every American who never wants to see America so disgraced by executive incompetence again.

Every American who wants to point out that the difference between Abu Gharib and other infamous episodes of prisoner abuse is that when Americans do something like this, they don't sweep it under the rug--they demand full accountability.

...And speaking of accountability, how many more photographs have to come out before Rumsfeld is made to answer for his incompetence in public?

[Randolph Carter]

Brooks,

The people who were abused and tortured benefit. The American public benefits from knowing the truth about what is happening in Iraq. Iraqis already know this sort of stuff is going, so they don't really need much new red meat to get their blood boiling. It's just a sign of how sick the current government is (and no, i'm not a bush-basher, I mean the whole stinkin hill) that we can know the contents of these pictures but aren't allowed to see them.

[Jennifer]

Brooks-
When you say "Why should we arm the enemy," then "the enemy" is everybody who thinks we should NOT be torturing people. Uh huh. We're either with America or against her, right?

[brooks b]

That's swell Tom and wonderfully idealistic but what about the practical consequences?

[Lowdog]

Sweet, more toture and cover-up apologists!

We're in bizarro-America now, folks!

[jf]

Tom, isn't the truth that Americans have ALWAYS swept this kind of stuff under the rug. How long did it take for the full details of the Tuskegee Syphillis Study to get out? Watergate required a bitter FBI hack pissed off because he got passed over for promotion. Americans might want accountability, but the government merely wants to cover its own ass, and the asses of any relative who might have preceded certain individuals in certain high executive positions.

[Jennifer]

What consequences, Brooks? Are you afraid that the Iraqis might start disliking us, and killing us when they can? Because we're already WAY past that point.

Let me ask YOU a question: everybody in the world, except the Dittoheads in denial, already knows what's going on in our overseas prisons. What have we to gain by trying to suppress the evidence? Other than a reputation for hypocrisy.

[joe]

Brooks, I have no doubt that your desire not to see many millions of Muslims infuriated by proof of hideous torture committed by Americans is sincere.

That being your goal, wouldn't any action that would tend to make said hideous torture less common (like, say, the release of information that pressures the administration responsible for the torture to put a stop to it) be a step in the right direction?

[joe]

Speaking of hideous torture, I await the inevitable subpoena from "English Language vs. joe" that will arise from that first sentence. Eek.

[Tom Crick]

Oh, and, by the way, the policies that Rumsfeld and company incompetently let migrate from Guantanamo to Abu Gharib are still in effect at Guantanamo--at least that's my understanding.

...and when I look at the techniques Rumsfeld made allowable (the full list is in the appendix of the Schlesinger Report) and compare them to what I saw in the first batch of photos, I'm still not clear but that some of the acts in those photos aren't in compliance with Rumsfeld's revised policies for Guantanamo.

...If indeed these policies are still in effect at Guantanamo, tell me, how do I know that American personnel there aren't disgracing America--in full compliance with revised policy--even today? ...Making more recruitment posters, as you say?

[Tom Crick]

"That's swell Tom and wonderfully idealistic but what about the practical consequences?"

Idealistic?

...Well here's a pragmatic question for you. What are the practical consequences of allowing the Department of Defense to skip along its merry way without having to account for the results of its policies and their implementation?

[SR]

"how many more photographs have to come out before Rumsfeld is made to answer for his incompetence in public?"

Actually, Rumsfeld told a Senate panel in June that he's offered to resign twice and that Bush turned him down: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062302111.html (see bottom half of first page)

Of course, the senators didn't ask the logical follow up question: "If you've repeatedly offered to resign for your errors, Sec. Rumsfeld, but President Bush continues to keep you on his staff, doesn't that make subsequent failures partially his responsibility?"

[Tom Crick]

"Tom, isn't the truth that Americans have ALWAYS swept this kind of stuff under the rug."

Injustice happens. I refuse to ignore it when it does.

...even when it's comin' from my side.

[Mo]

brooks,
I've stated this on the board a few times, but I guess I need to repeat it again. The summer before the Abug Ghraib scandal occured, my aunt was visiting from Egypt. She told us about all the horrors that were going on in Abu Ghraib and the horrible treatment these prisoners were getting. My (very anti-war) dad and I both said she was being ridiculous and that this would have come out in the media if it was true. We also said that if it ever comes to light the people responsible will be brought to justice because that's what is great about the American system.

Let me tell you something, crow tastes like shit.

[Mike H.]

Hi, my name is Mike! And I support, wholeheartedly, the war in Iraq. That being said...

I'm conflicted on the issue of the additional pictures. I can see brookes' point and agree that almost certainly they'll be a jihadists' look-how-evil-America-is! wet dream. But I can also see the other side's. And I must say, I think that the pro-release side has the better argument in this case.

This is America. We have a (relatively speaking) transparent government here, and war or no war, we shouldn't be afraid to hide these things. Get 'em out in the open and hold people accountable.

I look at it this way: Release or no release, the jihadists will make hay out of this. Either they're released and they point to 'em, or they're not... and they point to their lack of release. The best possible thing for us to do is to get this over with and release them in full public view and carry on as best we can.

[rob]

Just one question for Jennifer...

When you say "When/if" are you really saying that you're positive that this is what has been done, even tho there has yet to be proof of this? That you expect that this will be the case? I'll be pretty pissed if it turns out to be the case, but it sounds like you might be pissed if it turns out NOT to be the case.

"When/if they see photos of Iraqi women being raped by American soldiers, or Iraqi men being murdered. . . well, they'll probably still make bullshit excuses, but at least they'll have to try a little harder." Comment by: Jennifer at July 25, 2005 03:02 PM

[rob]

As for Tom Crick/Ken Schultz's trifecta of bad arguments, well, I should start by saying that I think he went past seeing any of this reasonably a LONG time ago...

"Oh, and, by the way, the policies that Rumsfeld and company incompetently let migrate from Guantanamo to Abu Gharib are still in effect at Guantanamo--at least that's my understanding."

Uh, yeah. The ones that are LEGAL, and in compliance with the President's Memo outlawing torture are still being used. Thus far, no one has been convicted of following orders but for disobeying orders not to abuse prisoners by pulling the stunts that we all saw Graner and England pulling in those infamous photos.

I can no longer chalk this up to honest misunderstanding. I think you've moved on to willfully mis-representing the Schlesinger Report, the Memoes cited in it, and the Schmidt Report (Final Report Investigation into FBI Allegations of Detainee Abuse at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba Detention Facility).

You know that last one? The one that says that despite some degrading and abusive treatment that did not rise to the level of inhumane treatment? The one that says in black and white that it "found no evidence of torture or inhumane treatment at JTF-GTMO."???

Hmmm... Sure is quiet all of a sudden...

"...and when I look at the techniques Rumsfeld made allowable (the full list is in the appendix of the Schlesinger Report) and compare them to what I saw in the first batch of photos, I'm still not clear but that some of the acts in those photos aren't in compliance with Rumsfeld's revised policies for Guantanamo."

That's because your reading comprehension skills need work. I can tell the difference, why can't you? Probalby because I'm not blinded by self-righteousness on the subject to the point of being unable to see anything other than what I want to see. (Cue rabid cursing response from TC/KS.)

"...If indeed these policies are still in effect at Guantanamo, tell me, how do I know that American personnel there aren't disgracing America--in full compliance with revised policy--even today? ...Making more recruitment posters, as you say?"

Because more recruitment posters would actually make you clap gleefully, I fear. (Cue more rabid cursing from TC/KS.)

[Steve]

Jennifer,
I got into it with you here on the 4th of July about whether America is totally fucked or not, so I don't want to start the whole thing again. I know I'm not going to change your mind, but there's one point I'd like to make:

(I'm going to gorssly paraphrase your statement, and I hope I don't misprepresent it). You say that while America might be freer than it has been in the past, what's concerning you most is the *direction* -- you think that, for the first time, we're becoming a less free country. I think you're glossing over our past "progress." It's true that over the long term, the story of this country (and of the world) is, generally, one of greater freedom for more people. But if you put yourself back in those times, it would not have been obvious that we were making progress.

Take race relations. Around the time of the American Revolution, there was some momentum, at least among the intellectual elites, for ending slavery. Washington freed his slaves, and even Jefferson apparently felt bad about owning slaves. Fast-forward from 1776 to 1850: slavery is every bit as entrenched as ever. What the hell?

Now fast-forward another 100 years. Was the treatment of blacks in the South any better in 1950 than it was in 1870? In many ways, it was worse. Again, what the hell?

Anyway, my point is, don't let some temporary stalling or setbacks convince you that America is fucked forever. This is still a free country, and the big trend is that it's getting freer, on the whole.

[LankyB]

I generally advocate transparency. In this case though, I'd be happy with an independent investigation and a promise to declassify everything in 10 years. I'm not holding my breath though, it's too big.

I don't believe the crimes were confined to 7 individuals because basic questions are unexplained. Who requisitioned the guard dogs? From whom? No officer had to approve that? None knew what was going on? Call me skeptical. Ties from Gtimo to Abu G are window dressing. The truth is simple if you read between the lines.

But those pictures are a nuclear bomb. They were shown to the Senate. If there was a cover-up then even the Democrat Senators (in an election year) went along with it. What could be so bad that Democrat politicians keep silent? If it's a cover-up, it's a bi-partisan cover-up. When neither party is willing to face the truth, it must be a truth they don't think America can handle.

[Jennifer]

Rob-

If nobody's been raped or killed by Americans in Abu Ghraib, then our own military is telling lies to make themselves look worse than they are. Now why would they do that?

[Hakluyt]

I guess the despicable attitude of some is best summed up by Rep. Tancredo: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8703595/

[Hakluyt]

Jennifer,

Its all part of the strategy to deny, obfuscate, and becloud.

[thoreau]

I'd be more impressed by certain posters if they'd at least agree with me on something. But what do people on this forum argue?

It isn't all that bad. I mean, we're just talking about underwear hats here. (They ignore the guy who was raped with a glowstick.)

And even if it is bad, well, they deserve it! They aren't lawful combatants under the rules of war! (Regardless of whether their legal reasoning is correct, some of the guys were innocent.)

And as for the innocents, well, you can't make an ommelette (spelling?) without breaking a few eggs! And Saddam was much worse! (So much for the notion that we're there to liberalize the place.)

And even if it was all wrong, well, it was only a few bad apples! And they've all been convicted! (Leaving aside the fact that the officers and more senior enlisted personnel must have been, at the very least, negligent in their supervision of subordinates for something of this magnitude to happen.)

And even if some officers were involved, it definitely doesn't go to the people in DC! And even if it does go all the way to DC, it doesn't reach all the way to Rumsfeld and Bush! (I don't know enough to judge that statement, but I'd be more impressed if it came from some other source.)

[Jennifer]

Actually, Hakluyt, our moral compass has gotten so screwy I almost wouldn't put it past them. "Ha, HA, assholes! You thought we had seven men gang-rape that woman to death, but it was only five! Can't trust that goddamned liberal media exaggeration bias."

[thoreau]

Regarding Tancredo's suggestion to bomb Muslim holy sites, how about instead we stop giving Israel a fixed annual payment, and instead give them a per corpse allotment? Every time a Muslim terrorist attacks Americans they put a little more money in the Israeli Treasury. That should give them some pause!

I know, it's probably not a good idea for multiple reasons, but it's funny to think about.

[Hakluyt]

thoreau,

I think it would be better if we got out the Israel-welfare business.

Tancredo is of course advocating terrorism.

[rob]

"Rob-

If nobody's been raped or killed by Americans in Abu Ghraib, then our own military is telling lies to make themselves look worse than they are. Now why would they do that?

Comment by: Jennifer at July 25, 2005 06:38 PM"

Huh? What does that have to do with anything I've written?

We know that a guy died under torure - at least I believe that. And the guys who did it deserve to be in prison for it. I'm just as curious about Abu Ghraib torture photos as the next poster here. But I also believe that the folks who did these things are going to get tried and sent to prison themselves.

The worst thing that these photos could reveal is that we aren't prosecuting people who torture prisoners, or worse, actually rape or kill them. I'm optimistic that this is not the case, but then I also think that it's highly unlikely that we actually condoned torture.

If I'm proven wrong, then I believe that anyone who took part in it deserves to be severely punished, including anyone who tried to cover it up. (I differ on where that line stops from people like TC/KS, obviously.)

But you say "when/if" almost like you're hoping that's the case. Honestly, that freaks me out.

[Tom Crick]

"The ones that are LEGAL, and in compliance with the President's Memo outlawing torture are still being used."

The memo to which you refer is dated February 7, 2002--the Schlesinger Report labeled it as Appendix C. Donald Rumsfeld, on the advice of Antionio Gonzales, subsequently changed policy in regards to the treatment of "detainees", most notably between December 2, 2002 and April 16, 2003.

It is written:

"The study led to the Secretary of Defense's promulgation on April 16, 2003 of a list of approved techniques strictly limited for use at Guantanamo. This policy remains in force at Guantanamo (see Appendix E)."

----The Schlesinger Report, .pdf p. 10 of 126

Am I mistaken when I say that the approved techniques were previously prohibited as tortuous?

[Jennifer]

Rob-
"When" in the event that the photos are released; "if" in the event that they are not. What freaks you out about that?

And the events listed later are events which apparently do appear in the photos. THAT is appalling, but that would be the responsibility of the military, not me.

[Tom Crick]

Antonio/Alberto whatever.

[Tom Crick]

"I can no longer chalk this up to honest misunderstanding. I think you've moved on to willfully mis-representing the Schlesinger Report, the Memoes cited in it..."

"...the abuses were not just the failure of some individuals to follow known standards, and they are more than the failure of a few leaders to enforce proper discipline. There is both institutional and personal responsibility at higher levels."

----Schlesinger Report .pdf page 7 of 126.

"In the Summer of 2002, the Counsel to the President queried the Department of Justice Office of the Legal Counsel (OLC) for an opinion on the standards of conduct for interrogation operations conducted by U.S. personnel outside of the U.S. and the applicability of the Convention Against Torture. The OLC responded in an August 1, 2002 opinion in which it held that in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain and suffering that is difficult to endure."

----Schlesinger Report .pdf page 9 of 126

[The OLC opinion in question obviously refers to the Gonzales Torture Memo, dated August 1, 2002.]

"...[Donald Rumsfeld] directed the Department of Defense (DoD) General Counsel to establish a working group to study interrogation techniques. The Working Group...included wide membership from across the military legal and intelligence communities. The Working Group also relied heavily on the OLC. The Working Group reviewed 35 techniques and after a very extensive debate ultimately recommended 24 to the Secretary of Defense. The study led to Secretary of Defense's promulgation on April 16, 2003 a list of approved techniques..."

----Schlesinger Report, page 10 of 126

"The existence of confusing and inconsistent interrogation technique policies contributed to the belief that additional interrogation techniques were condoned."

----Schlesinger Report .pdf page 12 of 126

"We cannot be sure how much the number and severity of abuses would have been curtailed had there been early and consistent guidance from higher levels. Nonetheless, such guidance was needed and likely would have had a limiting effect."

----Schlesinger Report .pdf pp. 15 & 16 of 126.

What have I misrepresented?

"I think you've moved on to willfully mis-representing ... and the Schmidt Report (Final Report Investigation into FBI Allegations of Detainee Abuse at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba Detention Facility).

Willfully misrepresented the Schmidt Report? ...I don't think I've ever even mentioned it! Where did I mention the Schmidt Report?

[Tom Crick]

"That's because your reading comprehension skills need work. I can tell the difference, why can't you? Probalby because I'm not blinded by self-righteousness on the subject to the point of being unable to see anything other than what I want to see. (Cue rabid cursing response from TC/KS.)"

.pdf p. 112 of the Schlesinger Report lists Rumsfeld's approved techniques including "Removal of Clothing" and "Exploiting individual phobias, e.g. dogs."

...Coupled with some of the other items on that list, I think anyone who looked at those photos might assume the worst.

[Tom Crick]

"Because more recruitment posters would actually make you clap gleefully, I fear. (Cue more rabid cursing from TC/KS.)"

Go fuck a duck.

[Les]

Rob,

To suggest that people who disagree with you might be anxious for Al Quaeda to recruit more terrorists makes most everything else you say worthless. It's a terrible, juvenile way to argue a point.

[Not Neo-conned]

I don't think Al Qaeda has any trouble recruiting these days.

[gaius marius]

We're in bizarro-America now, folks!

i have to admit, mr lowdog, that i think we're in the same old america -- it's just that blindly arrogant nationalist zeal really made many of us think, for some unevidenced reason, that we were better than everyone else or would ever really try to be when push came to shove.

[jack wayne]

H&R has become an outpost of the Kos Kidz. Boring.

[Rick Barton]

If the consensus at Kos condemns the barbarities committed by our government, the immorality and idiocy of giving the Israeli government billions to expropriate the Palestinians and other a foreign interventions that needlessly make us the targets of terror-If the consensus at KOs condemns all of these, it's to Kos's credit.

The problem with Kos is that they fail to understand the harm that is done by domestic intervention by government and also they fail to understand the benefits of capitalism and other freedoms.

[mona]

Don't you people realize we are at war?

This is the last straw. I'm really cancelling my subscription now!

[gaius marius]

Don't you people realize we are at war?

lol -- right. 🙂

[Rick Barton]

Mona, please note:

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism"

Thomas Jefferson

"It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority, especially during war"

Benjamin Franklin

"The safety of the people of America against dangers from foreign force depends ...on their placing and continuing themselves in such a situation as not to invite hostility or insult; for it need not be observed that there are pretended as well as just causes of war."

John Jay

"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home"

James Madison

[Ricky Barton]

Livin' la vida - The Jooooooooos!

[thoreau]

Rick-

Good points, but I don't think that was Mona. (Check the email address and you'll see what I mean.)

[Rick Barton]

thoreau PhD,

Right you are.

Ricky Barton,

Your parody of me misses the mark. It's governments and their supporters that I skewer, never peoples. The Israeli government, and our government's support of it with our money, has it coming big time!

[Tom Crick]

Indeed Rick, one's words are often misconstrued by opponents in this medium...

...And with that in mind, I'd like to take this opportunity to ask that none of my comments above be misconstrued so as to infer any support whatsoever for the sexual abuse of waterfowl. ; )

[rob]

"To suggest that people who disagree with you might be anxious for Al Quaeda to recruit more terrorists makes most everything else you say worthless. It's a terrible, juvenile way to argue a point.

Comment by: Les at July 25, 2005 08:54 PM

Les - True. And no argument about it. But you should see the stuff I've put up with from Tom Crick/Ken Schultz on other threads. Molesting waterfowl is the least of his rhetorical sins.

For the record, tho, that's not exactly what I said. What I said was that "Because more recruitment posters would actually make you clap gleefully, I fear." What that means is that the more bad news TC/KS hears about this (recruitment posters), the more self-righteous he gets and the happier he is to be right. I think he'd rather be right no matter how bad that is for actual human beings, than be wrong no matter how much better it would be for the world. (Iraqis, the US, basically everyone except people who purposefully target and kill civilians.)

Tom Crick/Ken Schultz: I'm not cutting and pasting the same response I've made to you the last half-dozen times we've argued this.

I see that you still have that macro programmed to spit out the same thing on every thread whenever this subject is raised. That shows technical proficiency, too bad you're not such a perfectionist when it comes to actually making fact-based arguments.

"Rumsfeld's approved techniques including 'Removal of Clothing' and 'Exploiting individual phobias, e.g. dogs.'" - TC/KS

Yup. And this is in line with the President's Memo. If it's not actual torture, and it clearly is NOT, then it's legal. Even if it does play on someone's fears or cultural taboos. It astounds me that you consider this torture. But you're obviously a guy who favors treating people who were captured trying to kill our citizens and soldiers with a great deal of sensitivity no matter the cost in innocent life.

"Willfully misrepresented the Schmidt Report? ...I don't think I've ever even mentioned it! Where did I mention the Schmidt Report?"

Silly me. I thought you'd actually read the Schmidt Report. My bad. It's hard to spot the difference between willful misrepresentation/ reading miscomprehension and actual failure to read the documents before making claims about the subject.

Are you actually arguing that you made this claim from ignorance? "Oh, and, by the way, the policies that Rumsfeld and company incompetently let migrate from Guantanamo to Abu Gharib are still in effect at Guantanamo--at least that's my understanding." That's what you claimed earlier in this thread, right? Maybe you should read the Schmidt Report. Here's a link:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2005/d20050714report.pdf

[rob]

"Rob- "When" in the event that the photos are released; "if" in the event that they are not. What freaks you out about that? And the events listed later are events which apparently do appear in the photos. THAT is appalling, but that would be the responsibility of the military, not me." - Comment by: Jennifer at July 25, 2005 08:23 PM

My bad. I mis-interpreted what you'd written. What freaked me out was reading your statement as tho you were saying "When/If they see photos of Iraqi women being raped by American soldiers, or Iraqi men being murdered" as tho those are definitely what the photos will reveal. I don't doubt that those photos depict heinous acts, but hopefully they are all of perpetrators who are being tried for their crimes.

[Tom Crick]

"Silly me. I thought you'd actually read the Schmidt Report. My bad. It's hard to spot the difference between willful misrepresentation/ reading miscomprehension and actual failure to read the documents before making claims about the subject."

You suggested that I willfully misrepresented a report that I, in fact, never mentioned.

...Deal with it.

[Jennifer]

Rob--
According to people who actually saw the photos, rape and murder are indeed to be found. And so I want the photos released so people can stop denying the horrors we're doing. Same way I'm glad we have photographic evidence of other horrors in history.

Or at least we'll get some new and interesting rationalizations of why raping Iraqi women and murdering men picked up in random sweeps is necessary to maintain security.