Obama orders stop to detainee photo releases

President Obama has ordered government lawyers to object to the planned release of additional detainee photos, according to an administration official.


The Iraqi Ministry of Justice gave journalists an inside look at the prison formerly known as Abu Ghraib.

The Defense Department was set to release hundreds of photographs showing alleged abuse of prisoners in detention facilities in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"Last week, the president met with his legal team and told them that he did not feel comfortable with the release of the photos because he believes their release would endanger our troops, and because he believes that the national security implications of such a release have not been fully presented to the court," the official said.

"At the end of that meeting, the president directed his counsel to object to the immediate release of the photos on those grounds. ... strongly believes that the release of these photos, particularly at this time, would only serve the purpose of inflaming the theaters of war, jeopardizing U.S. forces, and making our job more difficult in

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/12/prisoner.photos/index.html

However, I have been wrong in the past with Obama's actions.

...about the torture funded with our money.

Can Obama override a Federal Judge? I know Bush* could do that but can Obama?

...So, knowing this President, there must be something to be gained from objecting to their release, knowing full well they will come out.

He has used signing statements, already

quit impeding the flow of information.

Not prosecuting war criminals is also endangering our troops.

So get with it!

Day after day, time after time, I try to believe in Obama doing the right thing, and then day after day and time after time I see the continuation of Bush Crime Family policies and I just want to scream! If he's so worried about endangering the troops, then bring them home, dammit! But no, we have to leave everything as it was, and ignore the promises of change. It makes me want to :puke:

Someone's gonna come along & tell you that:

a) you're a purist;
b) that you weren't paying attention during the primaries because Obama didn't promise all that;
c) that you have to give him time, and;
d) that Obama is way smarter than all of us & has some grand stratgey, that when played out, is going to make all things great & good again.

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

I would agree with you that he's a huge disappointment, but I didn't have high expectations of him to begin with. Sure, on some social issues he's better than Bush/McCain, but basically, on the things that really count, war, health care, global warming, he's just a prettier face representing the same old corporate shit. In case you missed this article:

Buying Brand Obama
by Chris Hedges

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/05/04

What, for all our faith and hope, has the Obama brand given us? His administration has spent, lent or guaranteed $12.8 trillion in taxpayer dollars to Wall Street and insolvent banks in a doomed effort to reinflate the bubble economy, a tactic that at best forestalls catastrophe and will leave us broke in a time of profound crisis. Brand Obama has allocated nearly $1 trillion in defense-related spending and the continuation of our doomed imperial projects in Iraq, where military planners now estimate that 70,000 troops will remain for the next 15 to 20 years. Brand Obama has expanded the war in Afghanistan, including the use of drones sent on cross-border bombing runs into Pakistan that have doubled the number of civilians killed over the past three months. Brand Obama has refused to ease restrictions so workers can organize and will not consider single-payer, not-for-profit health care for all Americans. And Brand Obama will not prosecute the Bush administration for war crimes, including the use of torture, and has refused to dismantle Bush's secrecy laws or restore habeas corpus.

Brand Obama offers us an image that appears radically individualistic and new. It inoculates us from seeing that the old engines of corporate power and the vast military-industrial complex continue to plunder the country. Corporations, which control our politics, no longer produce products that are essentially different, but brands that are different. Brand Obama does not threaten the core of the corporate state any more than did Brand George W. Bush. The Bush brand collapsed. We became immune to its studied folksiness. We saw through its artifice. This is a common deflation in the world of advertising. So we have been given a new Obama brand with an exciting and faintly erotic appeal. Benetton and Calvin Klein were the precursors to the Obama brand, using ads to associate themselves with risqué art and progressive politics. It gave their products an edge. But the goal, as with all brands, was to make passive consumers mistake a brand with an experience.

more...

Obama, who has become a global celebrity, was molded easily into a brand. He had almost no experience, other than two years in the Senate, lacked any moral core and could be painted as all things to all people. His brief Senate voting record was a miserable surrender to corporate interests. He was happy to promote nuclear power as "green" energy. He voted to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He reauthorized the Patriot Act. He would not back a bill designed to cap predatory credit card interest rates. He opposed a bill that would have reformed the notorious Mining Law of 1872. He refused to support the single-payer health care bill HR676, sponsored by Reps. Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers. He supported the death penalty. And he backed a class-action "reform" bill that was part of a large lobbying effort by financial firms. The law, known as the Class Action Fairness Act, would effectively shut down state courts as a venue to hear most class-action lawsuits and deny redress in many of the courts where these cases have a chance of defying powerful corporate challenges.

===

The entire article is at the link. It caused quite a stir when it was posted about a week ago. I happen to think the article speaks more about what Americans have become than Obama himself, but there was so much outrage that it was impossible to get a discussion about that.

They choose who will benefit them the most. It's a difficult truth to face, but it's all just an illusion of democracy.

retribution. I just don't get it. Our meer presence infuriates the middle east and I think the photos need to be released so the dummies in America who think we're only talking about isolated incidences of torture will get the picture loudly and clearly. imho

I did not listen to her. My only condolence is that McCain/Palin is not in office.

(Editing period ran out)

not at all..this isn't the only thing Obama has blocked in the courts!!..but look the other way >>>>>>>..no no this way<<<<<<<<<<..no that way>>>>>>>>>
must be some grand chess game dont'cha think??????

woo hoo..we all need to put those changey blinders on..they should be cheap now, since they are needed for so much these days!!

but shhhhhhhhhhh..don't tell anyone around here the truth..it is verboten!!

5,4,3,2,1 any minute now you will be the enemy for bringing this up!

I have posted these things previously only to be severly critisized here...here is a recap of some ...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2009/04/24/media-largely-ignore-obama-doj-urging-court-drop-iran-hostage-lawsuit

MSM Ignore Obama DOJ Urging Court to Drop Iran Hostage Lawsuit That Implicates Ahmadinejad
By Ken Shepherd
April 24, 2009 - 11:47 ET


While President Obama was extoling the virtues of wind power in an Earth Day speech, his Justice Department lawyers were attempting to scuttle a lawsuit filed in federal court against Iran by former U.S. embassy hostages. The lawsuit alleges that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was one of the hostage-takers who interrogated the captives.

Two days after the story broke on the Associated Press wire, it appears the mainstream media have virtually buried the story, with no televised coverage save for a brief mention on CNN and one story in the Boston Globe.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Obama DOJ Seeks to Restrict Defendant's Right to Lawyer During Questioning


Obama DOJ Seeks to Restrict Defendant's Right to Lawyer During Questioning

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/4/23/22...
Obama DOJ Seeks to Restrict Defendant's Right to Lawyer During Questioning
By Jeralyn, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 09:15:28 PM EST

More true colors?

The Justice Department is asking the Supreme Court to overrule Michigan v. Jackson, the 1986 Supreme Court decision that held that if police may not interrogate a defendant after the right to counsel has attached, if the defendant has a lawyer or has requested a lawyer.

he protection offered by the court in Stevens' 1986 opinion is especially important for vulnerable defendants, including the mentally and developmentally disabled, addicts, juveniles and the poor,

This isn't the first time the Justice Department, under President Obama, has sought to limit defendants' rights.


Since taking office, Obama has drawn criticism for backing the continued imprisonment of enemy combatants in Afghanistan without trial, invoking the "state secrets" privilege to avoid releasing information in lawsuits and limiting the rights of prisoners to test genetic evidence used to convict them.

The idea of overruling the decision originated with Justice Alito during oral arguments in the case of Jesse Montejo, a Louisiana death row inmate. Even some prominent former prosecutors and judges are not on board with changing the rule:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/800659...


CIA torture exemption 'illegal'
US President Barack Obama's decision not to prosecute CIA agents who used torture tactics is a violation of international law, a UN expert says.

The UN special rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak, says the US is bound under the UN Convention against Torture to prosecute those who engage in it.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Was Waterboarded 183 Times in One Month
By: emptywheel Saturday April 18, 2009 11:57 am 550
diggs
digg it

I've put this detail in a series of posts, but it really deserves a full post. According to the May 30, 2005 Bradbury memo, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in March 2003 and Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times in August 2002.

On page 37 of the OLC memo, in a passage discussing the differences between SERE techniques and the torture used with detainees, the memo explains:

The CIA used the waterboard "at least 83 times during August 2002" in the interrogation of Zubaydah. IG Report at 90, and 183 times during March 2003 in the interrogation of KSM, see id. at 91.

Note, the information comes from the CIA IG report which, in the case of Abu Zubaydah, is based on having viewed the torture tapes as well as other materials. So this is presumably a number that was once backed up by video evidence.

The same OLC memo passage explains how the CIA might manage to waterboard these men so many times in one month each (though even with these chilling numbers, the CIA's math doesn't add up).

...where authorized, it may be used for two "sessions" per day of up to two hours. During a session, water may be applied up to six times for ten seconds or longer (but never more than 40 seconds). In a 24-hour period, a detainee may be subjected to up to twelve minutes of water appliaction. See id. at 42. Additionally, the waterboard may be used on as many as five days during a 30-day approval period.

So: two two-hour sessions a day, with six applications of the waterboard each = 12 applications in a day. Though to get up to the permitted 12 minutes of waterboarding in a day (with each use of the waterboard limited to 40 seconds), you'd need 18 applications in a day. Assuming you use the larger 18 applications in one 24-hour period, and do 18 applications on five days within a month, you've waterboarded 90 times--still just half of what they did to KSM.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Scott Horton on Democracy Now! today:

There’s a very strange factual issue here. President Obama says that we shouldn’t prosecute them because they relied on these memos. But a factual review is going to show that the CIA was using these techniques from April 2002, and these memos were commissioned and written, the first of them, in August of 2002. So it’s quite clear in fact that CIA agents were out in the field doing these things, not relying on these memos, with the memos not even being in contemplation.”

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Article 2 of Geneva is very clear…there is no excuse, none, for torturing anyone who falls under the jurisdiction of a signatory…under any circumstance. There are no excuses under Geneva. But apparently, in America’s failing democracy, there are excuses aplenty for ignoring the laws…


EDIT TO ADD:
The Eichmann defense has long since been accepted as providing no excuse.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
edit to add:
We know from the ICRC report this technique had been used, three years before Bradbury wrote his OLC memos, with Abu Zubaydah.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/...

Did Holder Know About the “Significant Misconduct” When DOJ Claimed Sovereign Immunity?
By: emptywheel Wednesday April 15, 2009 8:19 pm 11
diggs
digg it

On April 3, DOJ submitted a filing that argued that no citizen had the ability to sue if she had been wrongly wiretapped under Bush's illegal wiretap program. The government, DOJ claimed, had sovereign immunity that protected it from such suits.

As set forth below, in the Wiretap Act and ECPA, Congress expressly preserved sovereign immunity against claims for damages and equitable relief, permitting such claims against only a “person or entity, other than the United States.” See 18 U.S.C. § 2520; 18 U.S.C. § 2707. Plaintiffs attempt to locate a waiver of sovereign immunity in other statutory provisions, primarily through a cause of action authorized by the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2712, but this attempt fails. Section 2712 does not erase the express reservations of sovereign immunity noted above, because it applies solely to a narrow set of allegations not presented here: where the Government obtains information about a person through intelligence-gathering, and Government agents unlawfully disclose that information. Likewise, the Government preserves its position that Congress also has not waived sovereign immunity under in FISA to permit a damages claim against the United States.

Today, just 11 days later, we learn that,

As part of investigation , a senior F.B.I. agent recently came forward with what the inspector general’s office described as allegations of “significant misconduct” in the surveillance program, people with knowledge of the investigation said. Those allegations are said to involve the question of whether the N.S.A. targeted Americans in eavesdropping operations based on insufficient evidence tying them to terrorism.

So when Eric Holder's DOJ made expansive claims arguing that no one could sue federal employees for being wrongly wiretapped under Bush's illegal program, did he know this revelation from Glenn Fine's investigation into the wiretapping program? When DOJ claimed sovreign immunity, were they thinking not so much of the Jewel plaintiffs, whose claim was focused on the dragnet collection of US person data, but of the Americans targeted in what Glenn Fine's office considers "significant misconduct"?

Because if Holder did know (and the timing suggests it is quite likely he did), it makes those cynical claims of sovereign immunity all the more disturbing.

Fine's investigation will contribute to the larger FAA-mandated Inspector General's for which there is a presumption of openness. In other words, even if this hadn't been leaked now, in April, it is supposed to be published in unclassified form in July.


Read the rest of this entry »

.....................................................

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/...

Lichtblau and Risen Report Illegal Wiretapping of Americans … Again
By: emptywheel Wednesday April 15, 2009 5:36 pm 26
diggs
digg it

It's pretty pathetic that, three years after they first broke the story of the Bush's illegal wiretap program, Eric Lichtblau and James Risen are still reporting on illegal warrantless wiretapping of Americans.

Their story has two main revelations. First, in preparation for Holder's first semi-annual certification of the FISA program to the FISC, NSA realized it was not complying with the law.

In recent weeks, the eavesdropping agency notified members of the congressional intelligence committees that it has encountered operational and legal problems in complying with the new wiretapping law, according to congressional officials .

Officials would not discuss details of the over-collection problem because it involves classified intelligence-gathering techniques. But the issue appears focused in part on technical problems in the N.S.A.’s inability at times to distinguish between communications inside the United States and those overseas as it uses its access to American telecommunications companies’ fiber-optic lines and its own spy satellites to intercept millions of calls and e-mails.

One official said that led the agency to inadvertently “target” groups of Americans and collect their domestic communications without proper court authority.

.......................................................

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/... /

Does This Explain DOJ Reluctance to Turn Over AIG Monitoring Documents?
By: emptywheel Wednesday April 15, 2009 2:42 pm 17
diggs
digg it


TPMM notes that DOJ has been reluctant to turn over to the Oversight Committee the documents pertaining to its Delayed Prosecution Agreement with AIG. Here are some data points that might begin to explain why DOJ would be reluctant to reveal what they knew about AIG and when they knew it.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Seems some things never change..too bad we need Spain or other countries to lead the way in obeying laws and treaties!!!!!!

Obama to Appeal Detainee Ruling

Obama the candidate:

September 2008


Obama on the need for habeas corpus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl3RPSw_450... ...

Barack Obama - the Habeas Debate Sept 27 2006

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BIylNUkmvo... ...

Obama on torture, detainees and enemy rights
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjDaeyUdpJY

NOW TODAY?????????????

Obama to Appeal Detainee Ruling

By THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: April 10, 2009
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Friday that it would appeal a district court ruling that granted some military prisoners in Afghanistan the right to file lawsuits seeking their release. The decision signaled that the administration was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight.

In a court filing, the Justice Department also asked District Judge John D. Bates not to proceed with the habeas-corpus cases of three detainees at Bagram Air Base outside Kabul, Afghanistan. Judge Bates ruled last week that the three — each of whom says he was seized outside of Afghanistan — could challenge their detention in court.

Tina Foster, the executive director of the International Justice Network, which is representing the detainees, condemned the decision in a statement.

“Though he has made many promises regarding the need for our country to rejoin the world community of nations, by filing this appeal, President Obama has taken on the defense of one of the Bush administration’s unlawful policies founded on nothing more than the idea that might makes right,” she said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/11/world/as... ...

or
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/11/world/as... ...



A version of this article appeared in print on April 11, 2009, on page A6 of the New York edition.


................................................

Obama has held onto the Unitary Presidency Powers

He has used signing statements

He has fought to "keep breaking" the FISA laws

as those pictures are not required at this time, IMO. We have already seen pictures. Considering this is close to Memorial Day, and that our President has apologized and stated that this will no longer happen, and that he will be speaking in Egypt very shortly, I think says more than those photos could ever say. If these were the first sets of pics being shown, and if we were not already seriously discussing torture with having those memos release, then yes, they would be required. But considering, I don't see how it sheds any light on anything, and regardless of what we would like, our soldier are still out there in foreign lands. I think that they should, however, at some point be released, just because they exist if for no other reason.

..."same as the old boss"

:puke:

RL

REALLY?

RL

ARGH! Where is the change we voted for??? The battle over these photos already cleared the courts! Why is he covering for the Bush administration AGAIN??? If they were worried about the damage these photos could do - THEY NEVER SHOULD HAVE DONE WHAT THEY DID in those photos - or at least not taken pictures of it. WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW THE TRUTH DAMNIT!!! :grr: :mad:

with Bush we knew what we had and we didn't expect anything. Obama is doing almost the same thing while pretending to do the opposite, that's worse.

You aren't the only one feeling betrayed by Obama right now, let me tell you! I am super pissed. He's covering up the crimes of the Bush administration AND he's acting like a corporate whore - helping out the big banks while I hear on NPR today that foreclosures are up 32% this month!!! Where's the help for those people? So even though people will get mad at you for saying what you said, there are many others who are also feeling quite betrayed by Obama too.

With any luck a REAL patriot will leak the pictures.

"..."At the end of that meeting, the president directed his counsel to object to the immediate release of the photos on those grounds. ... strongly believes that the release of these photos, particularly at this time, would only serve the purpose of inflaming the theaters of war, jeopardizing U.S. forces, and making our job more difficult in ..."

Obama is dead wrong with this explanation. Since he is no dummy you have to conclude he is lying for a reason. Why it is a wrong reason given: If the photos were released AND at the same time Executive orders signed forbidding ever again to use these methods AND introducing law to make such actions forever illegal, with very harsh punishments for infractions, THEN the world, the radicals included would see that we are serious. But not pursuing prosecutions for torturing, nor even meaningful investigations, and further refusing to make public evidence of gross violations, in this case phots with NO national security importance, is sending the clear, and loud message to the whole world that this administration will consider using torture now and in the future.

Now tell me again folks how this differs from 365 days ago!

same old same old

I hope we go the way of the USSR

"Clearly what they are doing is releasing images that show American military men and woman in a very negative light."

No you idiot, it's your FATHER who would be cast in a very negative light. Light...? Darkness is more like it. Guess Cheney is still calling the shots.

"They seem only to be interested in releasing things that really paint American in a negative light and don't give the American people a full picture of what went on," she said.

What? Are you blind? The photos will give us a full picture of the abuse and sadist mind of the Bush years.

Why is Obama doing this. WHY?

Now I know.

should be outraged whenever our laws are disreguarded no matter who is doing it!!..and if our laws are broken daily by our employees in our government ..then we must be outraged daily..it is our responsibility to protect and defend our constitution..you got a problem with that???????

Hell there is a white house briefing on right this minute about the white house order to block the photo release...are you missing it??

and should we get out balloons and have a party because the shit we fought to have released all these years is now being blocked by the guy so many gave their money and time to get elected is now blocking these pix???????

hmmm..

our government and change..and this just doesn't seem to be transparency to any rational thinking people!! ..or change..

Argh!!!! :banghead:

So who's the Dem that's going to run against Obama? He's got my vote already. I hope it's Kucinich.

He would get my vote in a second! Or Howard Dean maybe? Argh it's just that Obama is being such a corporate whore AND covering up the crimes of the Bush Administration. This is NOT what I voted for!! :grr: :banghead:

"The American Civil Liberties Union has sought the release of the photos and won a lawsuit against the U.S. government before the federal appeals court in New York. The only legal option left to the government was to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. Instead the Obama administration had earlier made the decision to end the appeals and release the photos.

Click for related content
Daily Nightly: U.S. military to release prisoner photos
Obama set to revive military commissions

Through an arrangement with the court, the Pentagon was preparing to release, by May 28, two batches of photos, one of 21 images and another 23. The government also had told the judge it was "processing for release a substantial number of other images."

The ACLU criticized the decision.

"The decision to suppress the photos is profoundly inconsistent with the promise of transparency that President Obama has made time after time," ACLU lawyer Jameel Jaffer said."


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30725189 /

I liked yesterday's but I don't get paid until the 15th. Maybe you guys should plan your drives around the 15th or last day of the month.

I think it's a wise decision, for now.

Can't have it both ways

and have concern for the troops who are involved in battle.

I am confident that the President is a man of his word.

the people in Afganistan and Iraq know the damn truth..they know damn well what happened..you are only fooling yourself to think otherwise..it is Americans that don't know the fucking truth!

Everyone in the world knows the truth..except Americans!

of recent attrocities plastered across world media outlets is best left to a time in the future, when our troops are home.

15-25 years..so another words ..the american people will never get the damn truth is that what you are saying?????

this is bullshit!!

The US courts said release the picture..Obama is saying fuck you to our courts..and that is ok with you?????????

and to say ..it will be a reminder..again i call bullshit..they have a reminder each and every damn day..with family memebers killed and tortured , and so many maimed , and the people are still without full potable water and just a few hours a day with power..and American soldiers killing other American soldiers..and walls around the soldiers bases in their country and a base bigger than Vatican city..who is kidding who here..they have a reminder each day when they open their eyes from what ever sleep they can get!

Obama is doing what he said he would regarding Iraq.

I think the people in question actually have a "reminder" that we're closing gitmo, that we're NO LONGER torturing, that we CHANGED Presidents and policy. I respect the opinion of the President on this. You, on the other hand are free to disagree.

I know i read that number has been estimated possibly up to 70,000..i am looking for the articke in my files..be back at'cha!!


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/washington/28troops.html?_r=1


Some Democrats had complained that too many troops would remain after August 2010 but tempered their criticism after the speech. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader, who on Thursday called a 50,000-member residual force too big, on Friday called Mr. Obama’s plan “sound and measured,” while urging him to keep “only those forces necessary for the security of our remaining troops and the Iraqi people.”

Nancy Pelosi of California, the House speaker who also criticized the residual force this week, said Friday that it should be “as small as possible” but praised the withdrawal plan as “good news because it signals that the war is coming to an end.”

:hi:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/28-7

Published on Tuesday, April 28, 2009 by Rebel Reports

Obama's Iraq: The Picture of Dorian Gray
While the US tries to present a new face, the ugliness of the occupation continues. Now it seems combat troops won’t exactly withdraw from Iraqi cities on June 30.
by Jeremy Scahill

Remember when Barack Obama made that big announcement at Camp Lejeune about how all US combat troops were going to be withdrawn from Iraqi cities by June 30? Liberals jumped around with joy, praising Obama for ending the war so that they could focus on their "good war" in Afghanistan.

Of course, the celebrations were and remain unwarranted. Obama's Iraq plan is virtually identical to the one on Bush's table on January 19, 2009. Obama has just rebranded the occupation, sold it to liberals and dropped the term "Global War on Terror" while, for all practical purposes, continuing the Bush era policy (that's why leading Republicans praised Obama's plan). In the real world, US military commanders have said they are preparing for an Iraq presence for another 15-20 years, the US embassy is the size of Vatican City, there is no official plan for the withdrawal of contractors and new corporate mercenary contracts are being awarded. The SoFA Agreement between the US and Iraq gives the US the right to extend the occupation indefinitely and to continue intervening militarily in Iraq ad infinitum. All it takes is for the puppets in Baghdad to ask nicely...

In the latest episode of the "Occupation Rebranded" mini-series, President Obama is preparing to scrap the June 30 withdrawal timeline.

As The New York Times reports: "The United States and Iraq will begin negotiating possible exceptions to the June 30 deadline for withdrawing American combat troops from Iraqi cities, focusing on the troubled northern city of Mosul, according to military officials. Some parts of Baghdad also will still have combat troops."



"What you're seeing is not a change in the numbers, it's a doctrine change," said First Sgt. David Moore, a New Jersey National Guardsman with the Joint Area Support Group, which runs the Green Zone. "You're still going to have fighters. Every U.S. soldier is trained to fight."

The Iraq occupation is like The Picture of Dorian Gray. No matter what public face the Obama administration attempts to present, it only grows more heinous with each passing day.

who also indicated that Bush = Gore.

When will people learn?

do you read anything?? or does your pay scale only allow you to come here and make stupid little quips ..and keep the propaganda agenda going??

I thought so..

posting now for the second time for you to fucking read ..you can read can't you?? or can you??



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/washington/28troops.html?_r=2


Those “transitional forces” will leave by 2011 in accordance with a strategic agreement negotiated by President George W. Bush before he left office.

But it also marked a sharp change in America’s attitude about Iraq after years of wrenching debate over war and peace. Despite some grumbling on the left and right, Mr. Obama’s pullout plan generated support across party lines on Friday, including from his rival in last year’s election and advisers to his predecessor, indicating an emerging consensus behind a gradual but firm exit from Iraq.

Suggesting that because GWB agreed to a transition, upon learning Obama would be President is the same thing as ADOPTING "No timeline Bush's" program for Iraq is bogus.

As for why I come here, I do so because I'm a Democrat. You?

and basically called me a liar..so is Dennis a liar too??


Dennis Kucinich: 'Get Out of Iraq. Get Out Afghanistan. Come Home America.' http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/05/14-11

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 14, 2009
2:45 PM


CONTACT: Congressman Dennis Kucinich
Nathan White (202)225-5871
'Get Out of Iraq. Get Out Afghanistan. Come Home America.'


WASHINGTON - May 14 - Speaking on a Supplemental Appropriations bill that would continue to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today made the following statement:

"America went to war against Iraq based on a lie. We were told back in 2002 that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The previous administration even pursued torture to try to extract false confessions in order to justify the war. It is time to tell the truth. The truth is we should not have prosecuted a war against the Iraqi people. The truth is the Democratic Senate could have stopped the Iraq war in 2002. The truth is we Democrats were given control of Congress in 2006 to end the war. The truth is this bill continues a disastrous war, which has cost the lives of thousands of our soldiers. The truth is the occupation has fueled the insurgency. The truth is the Iraq war will cost the American and the Iraqi people trillions of dollars and as many as a million innocent Iraqis have lost their lives as a result of this war.

"Don't tell the American people that you are ending the war by continuing to fund the war. Don't tell the American people that the war will end when their plans leave 50, 000 troops in Iraq. Don't tell the American people that the way out of Afghanistan is to escalate our presence.

"Get out of Iraq. Get out Afghanistan. Come home America."


edit to add*** not only am I a democrat..i have been an elected democrat!!..A democrat that damn well doesn't like being lied to!

Is Dennis Kucinich some God like figure that I'm supposed to defer to? Clue for ya, I don't.

Perhaps as a formerly elected Democrat, you can show me what "lie" (from the current President) that you take issue with?

Feingold Rebukes Obama For Detainee Photo Reversal
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/13/feingold-whack...

Sam Stein

Feingold Rebukes Obama For Detainee Photo Reversal

First Posted: 05-13-09 04:40 PM | Updated: 05-13-09 04:57 PM



Senator Russ Feingold became one of the first elected officials to criticize Barack Obama for his reversal on releasing of detainee abuse in a statement Wednesday afternoon. Saying he saw no "compelling reason" to object to the release of the images, the Wisconsin Democrat said:


"I am generally opposed to keeping the American people in the dark for no other reason than to shield misconduct, avoid embarrassment or other reasons not pertaining to national security. From what I've heard so far, I'm not convinced there is a compelling reason these photos shouldn't be released."

apparently.

I just had to say that before someone else used that movie line. (They instead of you of course)

salt in the wound.

And if Bush used this reasoning, as he always did, you would be calling him a Fascist. Face it. The "protect the troops!" is a bunch of bologna.

There's no reason not to release the photos except for political ones.

torture and the man who ENDED it.

Nobody can stop the CIA from torturing people. They have been doing since they began. They'll do it for their entire existence.

President if they do.

Glen Greenwald's question to people defending Obama's position on torture photos http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/13/photo...

"...(5) For all of you defend-Obama-at-all-cost cheerleaders who are about to descend into my comment section and other online venues to explain how Obama did the right thing because of National Security, I have this question: if you actually want to argue that concealing these photographs is the right thing to do, then you must have been criticizing Obama when, two weeks ago, he announced that he would release them. Otherwise, it's pretty clear that you don't have any actual beliefs other than: "I support what Obama does because it's Obama who does it." So for those arguing today that concealing these photographs is the right thing to do: were you criticizing Obama two weeks ago for announcing he would release these photographs?"


...As Judge Hellerstein wrote in rejecting the Bush argument -- now the Obama argument -- that disclosure would jeopradize the troops: "the freedoms that we champion are as important to our success in Iraq and Afghanistan as the guns and missiles with which our troops are armed."

I don't argue that it was the right thing to do, or NOT. I simply argue that I respect his rationale and I believe it is genuine.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2569923.htm

KIM LANDERS: Well, President Obama is saying the detainee abuse photos are quote, "Not particularly sensational", especially when compared with what he calls, "the painful images from Abu Ghraib".

But we're learning that the top US commanders in both Iraq and Afghanistan have personally told the President that they oppose the release of the photos, they argue that they would enflame tensions in the two warzones, that they would make the US mission in both countries more difficult.

And for this reason, Tony, the President has ordered his legal team to argue before the court that there are national security reasons for blocking the release of the photos.

BARACK OBAMA: It's therefore my belief that the publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals.

In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger. Moreover, I fear the publication of these photos may only have a chilling effect on future investigations of detainee abuse.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/13/photos/index.html

The reversal is another indication of a continuance of the Bush administration policies under the Obama administration. President Obama's promise of accountability is meaningless, this is inconsistent with his promise of transparency, it violates the government's commitment to the court. People need to examine these abusive photographs, but also the government officials need to be held accountable.

Andrew Sullivan, one of Obama's earliest and most enthusiastic supporters, wrote of today's photograph-concealment decision and yesterday's story of Obama's pressuring Britain to conceal evidence of Binyam Mohamed's torture:

Slowly but surely, Obama is owning the cover-up of his predecessors' war crimes. But covering up war crimes, refusing to prosecute them, promoting those associated with them, and suppressing evidence of them are themselves violations of Geneva and the UN Convention. So Cheney begins to successfully coopt his successor. . .

From extending and deepening the war in Afghanistan, to suppressing evidence of rampant and widespread abuse and torture of prisoners under Bush, to thuggishly threatening the British with intelligence cut-off if they reveal the brutal torture inflicted on Binyam Mohamed, Obama now has new cheer-leaders: Bill Kristol, Michael Goldfarb and Max Boot. . . .

Those of us who held out hope that the Obama administration would not be actively covering up the brutal torture of a Gitmo prisoner who was subject to abuse in several countries must now concede the obvious. They're covering it up - in such a crude and obvious fashion that it is actually a crime in Britain.

On the one hand it is argued that releasing the photos will not further inflame our so called enemies b/c everyone knows what occurred already. On the other, it is said that Obama is somehow engaged in a cover up of the facts. Which is it?

Stop the bloody fucking wars gawd damnit. Osama is dead! Don't you get it? The Taliban is not Al Quida!

Obama, again is doing what he said. This thread isn't about pulling out the troops NOW. It's about releasing photos or not.

and they should be pulled out NOW! ...unless you have stocks in military industrial corporations.

He NEVER said "troops out now" he said "timely withdrawal."

to defend(protect)the Bush administration.

Americans need to see these pictures. Obama knows that if Americans see the pictures that they will demand prosecution and that's what this is all about! If anything, releasing the pictures and prosecuting those who did the international crime will show the world and would be terrorists that we will not tolerate torture from anyone. I am done with Obama. I will vote anti incumbent Dem in the primary. Change ...my ass!

Its a matter of timing...to which I would agree...

If this crap continues, my vote is certainly not guaranteed in 2012.

It's good to see our slow crawl back to the neanderthals is progressing nicely.

"Let them see what they have done."