The public doesn't need to see these photos

[DanS]

I understand your point, but I think the issue here is not gratuitous exploitation of pics of someone like Louima, but rather, how severe are the violations and how widespread? I think (from polls I've seen) that there's a good portion of the population that doesn't give a damn what we do in Gitmo or Abu Ghraib - I fall partly in the middle, in that I have a realistic understanding of prisoner treatment, especially of recent captures or irregular fighters. My concern isn't particularly with the poor insurgents who got captured before they got close to Allah, but with the efficiency of our operations and the level of discipline, command and control, and the degree of value we get out of our MI processing of insurgent prisoners.

I don't think these pictures answer to this issue any better than does text.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
DanS ... perhaps it will help your sensitivities to learn that the media company I work for forbids the use of any photo that has blood in it, on the grounds that it wouldn't be suitable for family oriented newspapers.

The company I work for happens to be very large as well, with dozens of papers across the nation and a few overseas as well.

Feel better?

Gatekeeper

This is what seems to happen. Nobody publishes the photos. Then somebody decides they want to publish the photos because they think the American public "needs" to see them. The fact that the photos have been published then becomes news. Then all news outlets feel they have to publish the pictures so that everybody can see what the big deal is, despite whatever policy they might have.

So no, I don't feel better.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DanS


I don't think these pictures answer to this issue any better than does text.

And if they answer at all, or even if they don't, why should they be restricted from publication? If publishers choose not to publish them, or members of the public choose not to view them, that's fine. But what fundamental justification is there for violating the First Amendment by restricting or preventing release of publication of these photos??

[DanS]

You think that courts are violating the first amendment by forbidding pictures and cameras in the courtroom? Or in the case of the Michael Jackson trial, any audio recording devices?

[chequita guevara]

The thing about photos is, they get results. It's one thing to say: horrible abuse has happened and its another thing to see it. When you just say it, not only can people go in to denial about the severity but it allows the professional liars to start trying to fool people by saying it was nothing worse than college hazing. Pictures are proof in a way words aren't. Proof is the enemy of the professional liars.

[Ramo]

In related news, the New York Times decided it would be a good idea to reveal the names of the shell companies the CIA uses in covert ops to ferry agents and prisoners around the world.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/31/n...=rssnyt&emc=rss

Thanks, guys...

Yeah, how dare they substantiate the Administration sending suspected Islamist terrorists to great defenders of liberty like Assad and Mubarak to be gently questioned? Why does the Times hate freedom so much?

[Ramo]

Regarding the pictures, the Red Cross reported the abuse Abu Ghraib several months before CBS released the pictures. It's too easy to dismiss the problems when they're merely words.

In particular, it's pretty damn easy to dismiss the abuse at Abu Ghraib as frat pranks, etc. when you haven't seen this:

Quoting Sy Hersh (one of the best investigative journalists around):

Some of the worst things that happened you don't know about, okay? Videos there are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib ... The women were passing messages out saying 'Please come and kill me, because of what's happened' and basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It's going to come out.

http://stream.realimpact.net/?file=clients/aclu/conf2004/20040707_aclu_AmericaAtACrossroads_300.rm

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DanS
You think that courts are violating the first amendment by forbidding pictures and cameras in the courtroom? Or in the case of the Michael Jackson trial, any audio recording devices?

I thought we're talking "publication" of the photos.

Pictures, as in sketches, are generally not forbidden in courtrooms. Live cameras and audio recording devices are a totally distinct issue, since you're balancing press rights with the right of defendants to a fair trial - the argument apparently being (and the OJ crap was a perfect example) that the live press activities interferes with effective conduct of the trial.) There's an ancillary issue of gag orders, but again, that's a balancing of rights.

What of any of that applies to the publication of Abu Ghraib or related photos?

[DanS]

Hmmm... Somewhat weak answers to that question, but...

(1) I don't know how the Geneva Convention could be followed and the photos released. As I understand it, this is not a right of the victim that he/she can waive, but rather it is a responsibility of the US government. Of course, the military has been somewhat fast and loose with its interpretation of these provisions, such as showing Iraqi soldiers with their hands above their hands during the war and showing Saddam Hussein upon capture, etc.

(2) Not all the prosecutions have been finished of these perps, AFAIK.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Regarding the pictures, the Red Cross reported the abuse Abu Ghraib several months before CBS released the pictures. It's too easy to dismiss the problems when they're merely words.

Exactly and for the most part they have been. People think there was nothing greater than some good Americans having some hazing fun. They don't know the full terror that our troops submitted these people to. Words are easily dismissed (and were when it was the Red Cross). Too many think the rest of the world is out to get us and is making up lies about the US. With pictures, you can't even argue that.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DanS
Hmmm... Somewhat weak answers to that question, but...


(1) I don't know how the Geneva Convention could be followed and the photos released. As I understand it, this is not a right of the victim that he/she can waive, but rather it is a responsibility of the US government. Of course, the military has been somewhat fast and loose with its interpretation of these provisions, such as showing Iraqi soldiers with their hands above their hands during the war and showing Saddam Hussein upon capture, etc.

The Geneva conventions weren't followed when the detainees were abused, and we've taken the position that the Geneva convention doesn't apply to these people.

(2) Not all the prosecutions have been finished of these perps, AFAIK.

The UCMJ and MCM have different procedural rules, and different jury pools. I don't think the effect of sensational pictures available in the press would be the same with career military officers and staff NCOs as it would be with picking a jury pool at random from the registered voters in the venue.

[DanS]

The Geneva conventions weren't followed when the detainees were abused, and we've taken the position that the Geneva convention doesn't apply to these people.

You must be thinking of Gitmo rather than Abu Ghraib. As far as I know, we have never taken the position that the Abu Ghraib folks do not fall under the Geneva Conventions.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Gitmo in its entirety, but Abu Ghraib, IIRC, is a mixed bag of different sorts of prisoners, including some insurgents, irregular and foreign fighters, some Baathists, all the way down to some common criminal scum, looters, etc. My recollection is that they're separated in different blocks or compounds, and only a fraction of them are of interest to the MI folks.

If we did apply the Geneva Convention to them, we couldn't legally interrogate them beyond name, rank, identifying number and date of birth.

[DanS]

As far as I know the Geneva Conventions, they can interrogate beyond that point. I don't know how far beyond that they can interrogate, though. Of course, the prisoners don't have to answer...

In any event, even if they aren't under the Geneva Conventions at Abu Ghraib, they should have Red Cross visits. There was the scandal where some interrogators were moving around some prisoners to avoid the Red Cross. Reprehensible.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Article 17:

"Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status.

Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him.

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

Prisoners of war who, owing to their physical or mental condition, are unable to state their identity, shall be handed over to the medical service. The identity of such prisoners shall be established by all possible means, subject to the provisions of the preceding paragraph.

The questioning of prisoners of war shall be carried out in a language which they understand."


Technically, you can interrogate, but you have to ask nicely, they're not obligated to give anything but the identifying information, and you can't mistreat, harass, threaten or revoke privileges in any way. So pragmatically, you can't interrogate.