Obama to block release of detainee abuse photos

[Weatherman]

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is seeking to block the release of hundreds of photos showing prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan being abused, reversing his position after military commanders warned that the images could stoke anti-American sentiment and endanger U.S. troops.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_pentagon_abuse_photos

Hmm..

[Caliga]

When Hans shows up, this thread will take a turn for the amusing. 

[KRonn]

Good going Obama admin. Many of these photos were evidence for charges brought against people by the military or judiciary. If the info is to be released, then release the transcripts of the trials and punishment handed out. Releasing these photos are a great propaganda tool for radicals, who won't bother to note that the pics were used as evidence, or that people were prosecuted. That this is not the norm in how US officials and military act, but an aberration.

[The Minsky Moment]

This really dumb.  the government lost the case.  They lost in front of Judge Hellerstein, who presided over much of the 9/11 cases and presumably knows a proper national security issue when he sees one.  They lost on appeal in front of the panel 3-0 and they lost the petition to rehear the case in front of the full appeals court.  Now they are going to try to appeal this turkey to the Supreme Court?

Stupid.

[Valmy]

Ok having something like Guantanamo Bay and abusing detainees was disgraceful enough but why did the government feel the need to take HUNDREDS of photographs of it?  You would think the Abu Ghraib would have taught somebody in the government a lesson.

[Ed Anger]

Ok having something like Guantanamo Bay and abusing detainees was disgraceful enough but why did the government feel the need to take HUNDREDS of photographs of it?  You would think the Abu Ghraib would have taught somebody in the government a lesson.

You gotta have something to wank to.

[Siege]

Ok having something like Guantanamo Bay and abusing detainees was disgraceful enough but why did the government feel the need to take HUNDREDS of photographs of it?  You would think the Abu Ghraib would have taught somebody in the government a lesson.

Yep. Never take a camera into combat.
Even if it is crystal clear PID, someone, somewhere, will find something wrong with it.

[Neil]

Why not burn the photos?  Problem solved.

[Martinus]

Ok having something like Guantanamo Bay and abusing detainees was disgraceful enough but why did the government feel the need to take HUNDREDS of photographs of it?  You would think the Abu Ghraib would have taught somebody in the government a lesson.

You gotta have something to wank to.

Yeah. You can't like torture someone every time you want to wank. 

[Neil]

Ok having something like Guantanamo Bay and abusing detainees was disgraceful enough but why did the government feel the need to take HUNDREDS of photographs of it?  You would think the Abu Ghraib would have taught somebody in the government a lesson.

Yep. Never take a camera into combat.
Even if it is crystal clear PID, someone, somewhere, will find something wrong with it.

Most people don't need to see the need for soldiers anymore.  But even more importantly, we've forgotten that all international law, including the laws of war, was written with the caveat that it could immeidately and unilaterally be discarded if it was convenient to do so.

Once they started making up 'crimes' to execute their enemies under, rather than just executing them for losing, we lost our way.

[Hansmeister]

Ok having something like Guantanamo Bay and abusing detainees was disgraceful enough but why did the government feel the need to take HUNDREDS of photographs of it?  You would think the Abu Ghraib would have taught somebody in the government a lesson.

The gov't didn't take the pictures, the perps did.

[Razgovory]

Ok having something like Guantanamo Bay and abusing detainees was disgraceful enough but why did the government feel the need to take HUNDREDS of photographs of it?  You would think the Abu Ghraib would have taught somebody in the government a lesson.

The gov't didn't take the pictures, the perps did.

Why did the government give the terrorists cameras.

[Hansmeister]

Ok having something like Guantanamo Bay and abusing detainees was disgraceful enough but why did the government feel the need to take HUNDREDS of photographs of it?  You would think the Abu Ghraib would have taught somebody in the government a lesson.

The gov't didn't take the pictures, the perps did.

Why did the government give the terrorists cameras.

The perps being the guards in Abu Ghrab that were convicted in court.

[The Minsky Moment]

The Pentagon's position here is perfectly understandable - the photos are embarassing to them and threaten to dredge back up again one of the less edifying moments in American military history.

Obama's OTOH position is inexcusable - he (correctly) made Bush's disgraceful evisceration of FOIA -- a federal law he was bound by oath to uphold and enforce - a major issue in his campaign.  It just goes to show Lord Acton is always right.  However sane a person appears to be going into the White House, they can't seem to control themselves from being taken over by the seductions of the imperial (and imperious) presidency.

[Faeelin]

I can see Obama's rationale. If the photos are as terrible as they sound (and it seems like, to block them, they have to be worse than Abu Graib) how could he avoid prosecuting people for this?