When the Abu Ghraib pics were released, how many here claimed that our troops had been endangered?

I am curious as to the extent to which those who believe that torture photos endanger our troops have been consistent since the Iraq war began, in regard to this issue.

How many of us are on record having protested against the release of the Abu Ghraib photos in real time, that is, in 2004, when the photos were released (if I'm not mistaken, by the 60 minutes show on CBS).

Did we engage on a debate back then, with a group being in favor of the release and another group against it (due to troop safety concerns)?

Is the realization that the Abu Ghraib photos endangered our troops something that has suddently come to our attention now, 5 years later, at the same time that President Obama has refused to release a separate set of photos from other prisons?

Are we being consistent with our beliefs?

Same as it ever was.

If I may ask.

Most were for full disclosure, but some expressed the same concerns you are seeing now. I'm sure you could find some links if you look hard enough.

And was the debate as heated as it is today, if there ever was such debate?
Note that we seem split about half vs. half in regard to President Obama's decision.

Why don't you donate get a star and do the research you seem to want someone else to do for you.

But if you have already donated, and already have the capability to conduct these helpful searches, why wouldn't you please be so kind as to provide me with the links to the debate that you claim happened back then?

Or perhaps no such debate took place?

Maybe someone else will be more inclined to waste their time looking back threw old DU posts from that time to show you what you seek. I don't have to because I remember it. If you can't take my word, which is not surprising on the internet, then look into it yourself.

But it was nowhere near the even split there is now. And the only thing that has changed is the man at the top. The crime is the same, the issue is the same...but now we have a Democratic president. For some that takes precedence above all else, right or wrong.

Welcome to DU. We be democrats here.

Of the torture.

Next up: mentioning torture endangers the troops. So does making frowny faces.

stand with them in the fall of 2003. Not even when one of them became the Dem nominee and AGAIN called for Rumsfeld to lose his job in 2004. NONE of the best known Dems at the time.

We lost Iraq ever thinking of us as liberators. Going to be at least a generation, if not longer to even have any type of normalized relations with the Iraq people and others in the middle east. We can have peace, and even some diplomacy, but going to be awhile for those feelings to go away from the populations.

So many deaths of people are directly caused by those actions at Abu Grabi.

But Bush directly said that " 'we'(his perception of we) were winning because we were killing them." It is more then breaking laws, it is a mind set.

They supported him for that, and they support him now for doing the opposite.

These people will invariably say it's good that Obama can change his mind (and it is, overall), but they say it to deflect their own lack of consistency on this. And some take it so far as to accuse other people of being sick and twisted for wanting to see these pictures, a tactic Hannity would be proud of.

You think intellectual consistency on this topic is illustrative of little minds? If so, could you please elaborate with both relevance and specificity?




Or (and I find this somewhat more likely..._), there are bumper-sticker philosophies which allow justification for quick and sudden moral one-eighties.

We supported getting the facts out - which the memo did and we supported some means of carrying that investigation forward - some of us did see that the photos could be used as propaganda.

I know I didn't not think the photos added to knowing what happened and thus there was no way to justify putting people at risk.

And while most of us here on DU know what happened, there are still many out there who think the torture was a one time only thing. A few bad apples, if you will.

Nothing in my lifetime (I'm 41) has undercut America's credibility more than this issue (though there are others that certainly tried). In my mind, the best way to restore some of that standing is to show the world our mistakes in all their ugliness, despite the risks. The risk involved is exactly what would make it a courageous thing to do, and there isn't a clearer way to send a message that we won't stand for this kind of thing in our country. As it is, the only message we're sending is that we won't stand for it...as long as it's safe to oppose it.

If all this is known by our enemies then they're already exploiting it, and owning up to our mistakes is the best way to defuse the propaganda that many are worried about. If we don't, we feed the very meme those people are pushing, making their propaganda more effective, not less.

Nixon had his breaking and entering, conspiracy. Reagan was the worst when his administration was caught running drugs, money and weapons! NOTHING was done. Bush I just reconnected everyone from Nixon's administration. Clinton had his lying episode. He got the worst of it so far. Bush II has world wide torture, kidnapping, murder, fraud, crimes against humanity .. and again we're going to blink? What might come next if misuse of power is not held to consequences?

Back then it was probably acceptable to release the photos to embarrass the Bush administration, who I believe used the same excuse as is being used by the Obama administration, that it would endanger our troops.

The troops are already endangered, IED's, suicide bombers, car bombs, etc.

It's damned if you do, damned if you don't. If the photos are released it'll help with the recruitment of more terrorists, because of what has been done. If the photos aren't released then it'll still help with recruitment of more terrorists because the US will be accused of hypocrisy.

Just read a story on the son of Charles Taylor who was tried for war crimes in the US, based on a 1994 law and was sentenced to 97 years in prison. Yet, our hypocritical government won't do the same thing to the former administration because the current White House is possibly trying to curry favor with the Repukes.

We are hypocrites, let's just admit it and get it over with, instead of pretending to be about the rule of law, let's tell the truth about what we really are and what we really stand for.

put our soldiers at risk - and he said it when the actions became known. The ABU Ghraib photos became iconic and they quickly conveyed things that did happen.

Which is my question.

I do think though that there was a fundamental difference. The policies were STILL in place with Bush as President. Now, they have changed under Obama. So, one reason for justifying the outcry was that the photos would increase the number of people rejecting the policy.

when it became apparent that torture was going on.....many of us CONTINUED to stand with Kerry two more times as he called for Rumsfeld to get the boot.

There are some DUers who stood with the Clinton-Lieberman-Schumer wing of the party that stood with Bush and Rumsfeld then. Still do, imo.

:puke:

I guess those memos are just random words that dont mean anything right?

to show the enemy how much of a bad ass the U.S military is or to gloat/boast of the U.S military success for the world to see.

.... oh wait, that was Obama.

Nevermind.

I cannot remember even one poster who stated just after the original abuses, that the Bush administration should play the remaining photos close and resist their publication.

However, I will gladly eat crow if one person can link me to just one non-troll ridden thread from that approximate time period in which a DUer makes that argument, and that argument is examined by others.

I doubt I'll be eating any crow-- I simply do not believe those arguments existed here at that time. I think a lot of posters are simply making things up in the here and now. A charge I do not make lightly, yet a charge I make with confidence.

but I came late in 2004. AFAIK there were never any (or many) DUer's who ever said Bush did anything RIGHT!
The archives are a real pain to search. What month were you curious about specifically?

and torture that was happening at Abu Ghraib. We wouldn't have known about it, and/or many wouldn't have believed the verbal accusations without seeing the photos. They served a valuable purpose, then. It was in the news for months and it was investigated and prosecuted. There is nothingto be gained from releasing additional photos other than to allow you and Johnathan Turley to oggle them for your viewing pleasure.

Also, the President never say they should NEVER be released.

If you were President and the military and DOD urged you not to release ADDITIONAL photos of a CLOSED INVESTIATION, because they COULD endanger troops overseas, I guess you'd say, tough shit. I don't care.

than it allegedly solves.

A short time later, the bodies of 4 beheaded contractors were swinging from a bridge.

...I know that some people seem utterly vexed and committed to wanting to see new torture photos... apparently the torture memos weren't enough.

Why read the Penthouse column of some guy writing about his buttfuck experience with some secretary where only a photo shoot will do.