See No Evil Yet, But Maybe Soon

U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein has ordered the release of 70 presumably sickening detainee abuse photographs and three videotapes by the Pentagon, in its legal battle with the ACLU (which gloats here). Rumsfeld & Co. have 20 days to file the inevitable appeal, so we still won't be seeing them for a while yet.

I explained why I think they'll never see the light of day in April. And I'm curious as hell to read the decision, to see why Hellerstein thinks those other 17 photographs and one videotape sought by the ACLU are just beyond the pale.

Comments

[Deus ex Machina]

Maybe those 17 photographs show the Iraqi's being forced to undergo floor humping torture.

[just thinking]

The ACLU may want the military to let go
just because the military doesn't want to.
That's the nature of the two beasts.
The ACLU isn't interested in how things come out,
just that thinks come out.

I've got no problem with either position.
I've got a problem with the Jerry Springer thing
that will come of the sensational photos,
and with the public that gets a kick out of it.

I hope this will nudge toward a return to the draft,
for a draftee army will not have the 'same think'
necessary for such unchecked 'animal house' behavior
nor for overthrowing our government some day.

Enough photos are out to tell me the voluntary army
has plenty of low class, moronic, defectives.

What more do we want to see, and why?
Are we trying to please some persversion?
They will show them, and Leno will play on them,
and riots will break out in Islamaville,
and some kids will die in vain,
and then someone will complain about that.

[Jennifer]

and riots will break out in Islamaville, and some kids will die in vain,

As the judge himself noted, the hardcore terrorists don't NEED excuses to attack us. As for the idea "We must let the government hide things which would make it look bad in the eyes of the world"--well, that's exactly the sort of thing the FOIA was designed to force the government to show. What, we should let the government hide any evidence of corruption and criminality, and use FOIA only to access things like second-graders' love letters to the president?

[Ethan]

I can assure you JT that I am very unlikely to get a "kick" out of these photos, and even if I did (okay okay maybe a little kick), that is not a reason to keep them hidden (I am not saying that you were saying that). The negative consequences of releasing these sorts of photos are real, but very minor compared to the negative consequences of not releasing them and the benefits of releasing them. If the government is forced to release documentation of its own moral missteps then the resulting outrage might compel them to, ya know, back off a bit on the whole torture/abuse motif. I suppose that one could argue that if we force them to release such documentation then they will simply take steps to ensure that such documentation never comes into being in the first place. I think the response to that is simply this: governments already take such steps, but they aren't perfect and sometimes a trail is left. And that should see the light of day.

When you said "I hope this will nudge toward a return to the draft," what does "this" refer to?

With respect to the point that releases such photos will energize those with terrorist leanings, you are probably right: there will probably be a small uptick in terrorist recruiting success. But the answer isn't stoppping the release of such photos, but to stop abusing people. Right?

Of course, it may be that the government is not interested in stopping terrorist recruitment. If no new recruits come along, eventually we will run out terrorists to kill. That would be bad for business from the Bush Administration's point of view.

[thoreau]

I think the notion of a government accountable to the citizens sort of requires the release of information that would make the government look bad.

[rafuzo]

thoreau, we *can't* let the government look bad! Why, then people might realize they're made up of humans just like us, humans who can be as base and vile as they can be noble and uplifting. And then maybe people might, just might get past the blinding light of feeling dependent on "the authorities" to handle all out messes.

And we couldn't have that.

[saw-whet]

'Acting with impunity' may be the catch phrase used by future historians to describe this period in American history.

[saw-whet]

'Cover your ass' has been used to the point of being a CYA acronym. We gotta move on, folks, toward even more egregious behavior.

[joe]

jt, do you think that people in the Muslim world aren't already aware of what's going on in our prison camps? Stories about prison conditions generally circulate faster among the communities that the prisoners come from, than those the jailers come from.

I don't think it's angry Muslims that the administration's defenders are afraid will be motivated to action by these photos.

[SR]

"Maybe those 17 photographs show the Iraqis being forced to undergo floor humping torture."

No, it's worse than that -- they show the prisoners being used as training dummies for Lightning Ju Jitsu!

[joe]

They're shown howling and weeping as they're compelled to attend a Cato lecture.

[saw-whet]

I see the server is working. Evil Dr. Thoreau's plan to destroy it must have been thwarted by the forces of Reason.

[jf]

Reagdring these pictures, could someone point me to the part of the Koran where it teaches you how to blur your junk when it's photographed? That's a pretty neat trick.

[The American Public]

ho hum.....

[rob]

It was a bad idea not to release all of the photos at once. It would be an even worse idea not to have already fully prosecuted the people who did the things seen in the photos before their release. I fervently hope that since the first mistake can't be avoided, the second has already been accomplished.

[Rick Barton]

What thoreau PhD said.

Also, perhaps after we view these items, we will better understand why the "terrorists" in Iraq want our government's military to leave their country.

[Jennifer]

If all the photos had been released from the get-go, chances are most of the uproar would have already died down by now. The military is just prolonging its own agony.

[ed]

I'm waiting for the DVD.

[Dave W.]

My guess is that the non-released ones are non-released because of which US soldiers are shown.

[Jennifer]

Wow, Dave, I never thought of that, but I wouldn't be surprised if you were right. Can't have any officers in the picture, now, can we?

[Rick Barton]

The crimes presumably depicted in these items have been committed by our government on our buck. Those responsible must be prosecuted.

[bigbigslacker]

If a young man is contemplating joining the resistance, he now knows he will either:

A: Be victorious, and honored as a hero
B: Get killed, get 72 virgins, eternal life, etc.
C: Get caught and be forced to play naked pyramid twister, have wires attached to his genitals, and pose naked for pics with female GIs.

There are too many to fight already - we can't afford the release of any more of these pictures.

[Jennifer]

There are too many to fight already - we can't afford the release of any more of these pictures.

Oh, please. How many young Muslim men are there, do you think, who currently think the US is a fine country but the Abu Ghraib photos will be the sole factor that changes their minds?

And besides, letting the government suppress evidence of its crimes would set a baaaaaad precedent.

[Jennifer]

I'm also remembering something the commenter Mo once said: his aunt, who lives in Egypt, told Mo and his father that we were doing terrible things in Abu Ghraib long before the story hit the media. The Muslims who hate us already know what's been going on. The only people who will have any blinders ripped from their eyes if these photos are released will be Americans.

[Native NYer]

But didn't anyone in the US who had blinders on already have them torn off by the previous round of photos?

No, I'd say the military must like to prolong it's own agony.

[Jennifer]

But didn't anyone in the US who had blinders on already have them torn off by the previous round of photos?

Actually, Native, for those who choose to wear the blinders, the previous round of photos served only to glue 'em more firmly in place. It wasn't until after the photos came out that you started hearing dumbass excuses like "All we did was put underwear on their heads" or "Boo-hoo, being made to stand around naked isn't torture."

[April]

I thought bigbigslacker was being funny. Maybe I need more caffeine.

Maybe I need less caffeine.

Hell, I don't know.

[bigbigslacker]

Yes, it was a jokey thing, as in "don't let the terrorist wannabes see this or everyone will want to join". Honest, I've never tried that electrostimulation thing....

(for real, IMO the military should have revealed all everything as the information came forward)

[Jennifer]

Sorry, BBS. Considering how the torture apologists are basically walking parodies, though, it's pretty hard to further parody them without being completely over-the-top.

[Britton]

"I fervently hope that since the first mistake can't be avoided, the second has already been accomplished."

IIRC, there are 9 people in prison for this, and Lyndie England will be #10.

[Jennifer]

IIRC, there are 9 people in prison for this, and Lyndie England will be #10.

Considering the crimes they're in for, I think we'll eventually discover that their sentences were insultingly short.

[poco]

Just Thinking: you writing a song there?

[r]

"The crimes presumably depicted in these items have been committed by our government on our buck. Those responsible must be prosecuted." -

Comment by: Rick Barton at September 30, 2005 11:39 AM

Under this standard, every crime committed by every person while on the job is the fault of their employer. I don't think the law is designed for that...

[Jennifer]

Under this standard, every crime committed by every person while on the job is the fault of their employer.

It is if the employer encouraged said crimes.

[Tom Crick]

Under this standard, every crime committed by every person while on the job is the fault of their employer. I don't think the law is designed for that...

I didn't read Barton's comment to suggest that people who didn't abuse prisoners should be prosecuted for abusing prisoners.

If Rick Barton means that everyone who is criminally responsible for the abuse should be brought to justice, then I agree with him.

...I would add that those who set the policies that led to this disgrace should have to pay a hefty political price for their incompetence.

[Shem]

'Cover your ass' has been used to the point of being a CYA acronym.

This line nearly broke my brain. There's just something about defining a word using a word.

[thoreau]

Abu Ghraib shows what happens if government employees aren't kept on a leash: Somebody else has to wear the leash instead.

Thank you, I'm here all week! Don't forget to tip your waitress!

[thoreau]

No, wait, I've got it:

Abu Ghraib shows what happens when you give federal employees too long of a leash.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

[Rick Barton]

Tom Crick:

If Rick Barton means that everyone who is criminally responsible for the abuse should be brought to justice, then I agree with him.

Right. That's exactly what I meant. However high up the chain of command that criminal responsibility goes. (After I posted it, I thought that no one could possibly construe...but r proved me wrong.

[joe]

"Under this standard, every crime committed by every person while on the job is the fault of their employer. I don't think the law is designed for that..."

If the employer had reason to know it was happening and didn't take steps, the employer could be liable.

If the employees were committing the crimes as part of their job, the employer is at least a conspirator, if not an accomplice.

[Kahn]

Abu Ghraib shows what happens when you give federal employees too long of a leash.

mmm, yeah.

I agree this whole thing is insane and the idiots should be punished.

But there's still something that gives me heart burn here. See, if you ever worked for the gov't (even indirectly as a contractor, like I have), then you already know the rules are simple:

Uncle Sam is far, far more concerned about making sure you don't do something wrong, than he is about empowering you to do something right.

I figure it'll only take 0.36 additional rules, on top of those already existing, before the Feds will be incapable of doing anything.

Upon which, everybody will bitch because response to Katrina was slow.

Repeat after me: there is no paradox here, it all makes perfect sense.