QuoteWASHINGTON – 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..
When Hans shows up, this thread will take a turn for the amusing. :)
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Valmy on May 13, 2009, 05:28:06 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on May 13, 2009, 05:28:06 PM
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.
Why not burn the photos? Problem solved.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 13, 2009, 05:30:12 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 13, 2009, 05:28:06 PM
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. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Siege on May 13, 2009, 05:39:35 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 13, 2009, 05:28:06 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on May 13, 2009, 05:28:06 PM
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.
Quote from: Hansmeister on May 13, 2009, 10:11:04 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 13, 2009, 05:28:06 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2009, 10:12:10 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on May 13, 2009, 10:11:04 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 13, 2009, 05:28:06 PM
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 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.
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?
Quote from: Faeelin on May 14, 2009, 11:02:33 AM
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?
So the rationale is - the photos are so bad they show evidence of a crime, and therefore revealing them will force the executive branch to fulfill its responsiblity to enforce the law, a responsibility that it can evade if the photos are kept under wraps.
sorry, that just makes it worse.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 14, 2009, 11:16:13 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on May 14, 2009, 11:02:33 AM
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?
So the rationale is - the photos are so bad they show evidence of a crime, and therefore revealing them will force the executive branch to fulfill its responsiblity to enforce the law, a responsibility that it can evade if the photos are kept under wraps.
sorry, that just makes it worse.
Hrmm. So what do you see as the consequences of releasing the photos?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 14, 2009, 10:34:06 AM
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.
There's hope for him yet then. Just need to get Pelosi disgraced. :)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 14, 2009, 11:16:13 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on May 14, 2009, 11:02:33 AM
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?
So the rationale is - the photos are so bad they show evidence of a crime, and therefore revealing them will force the executive branch to fulfill its responsiblity to enforce the law, a responsibility that it can evade if the photos are kept under wraps.
sorry, that just makes it worse.
I heard/read on the news that the photos aren't as damaging as Abu Ghraib. My understanding is that these photos were used as part of evidence to prosecute people committing the crimes, so the law is being enforced, I'd say. Just as laws for similar crimes not against Muslim/Arab prisoners are enforced, except this gets a lot more attention, for what ever reasons. I'm sure the info, minus pics, is out there on the criminal proceedings, or if not it can be made available through the Freedom of Information Act. We'll see how the courts decide on this, again.
Also, Pres Obama is soon to make a trip and speeches to people of the Mid East. So I'm sure he'd like to keep these out of public, for now especially. Not an excuse to release or not, just a note that since Pres Obama is trying to make overtures to the Mid East, this hurts his efforts.
Quote from: Hansmeister on May 13, 2009, 10:11:04 PM
The gov't didn't take the pictures, the perps did.
Military security allows people to take personal snapshots of interrogations of prisoners? WTF?
Quote from: Valmy on May 14, 2009, 11:55:19 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on May 13, 2009, 10:11:04 PM
The gov't didn't take the pictures, the perps did.
Military security allows people to take personal snapshots of interrogations of prisoners? WTF?
Yeah America must suck ass something fierce. I can't take a camera to work and I don't work with anything nearly as sensitive as torture.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 14, 2009, 11:02:33 AM
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?
Actually the opposite is true - the photos are not that bad, and they have been used to prosecute, so there is no real good reason to release them, other than to provide fodder for the "OMG TEH US IS EVIL!" crowd.
the rational is that if the photos are released, more people will die as a result. There is no compelling reason to release them, so why do so?
Quote from: Berkut on May 14, 2009, 01:16:21 PM
the rational is that if the photos are released, more people will die as a result. There is no compelling reason to release them, so why do so?
"Democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency."
Quote from: garbon on May 14, 2009, 01:18:34 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 14, 2009, 01:16:21 PM
the rational is that if the photos are released, more people will die as a result. There is no compelling reason to release them, so why do so?
"Democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency."
Is there some level of accountability that cannot be met without the release of these photos?
Does that demand outweigh the findings of the relevant authorities that releasing the photos will damage Americas ability to look after her interests and safeguard the lives of American citizens and soldiers around the world?
Perhaps they do - but I have seen no argument even put forth that that is the case, while the Administration, which is not exactly well known as one that makes habit of hiding this kind of stuff, has argued the opposite. Until someone gives me a good reason to reject that conclusion, it seems eminently reasonable to me.
There is all kinds of documents that are kept classified all the time. How is this any different?
Quote from: Berkut on May 14, 2009, 01:16:21 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on May 14, 2009, 11:02:33 AM
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?
Actually the opposite is true - the photos are not that bad, and they have been used to prosecute, so there is no real good reason to release them, other than to provide fodder for the "OMG TEH US IS EVIL!" crowd.
the rational is that if the photos are released, more people will die as a result. There is no compelling reason to release them, so why do so?
Hmm. This is a good point.
Quote from: Berkut on May 14, 2009, 01:16:21 PM
the rational is that if the photos are released, more people will die as a result. There is no compelling reason to release them, so why do so?
:huh: You don't think that the AG photos are getting old?
Quote from: Faeelin on May 14, 2009, 11:21:52 AM
Hrmm. So what do you see as the consequences of releasing the photos?
Don't know but whatever they are, they don't qualify as FOIA exceptions.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 14, 2009, 03:20:17 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on May 14, 2009, 11:21:52 AM
Hrmm. So what do you see as the consequences of releasing the photos?
Don't know but whatever they are, they don't qualify as FOIA exceptions.
Apparently Obama does not agree with you. I imagine he is citing Exemption #1, in fact - possibly 7 as well.
Quote from: Berkut on May 14, 2009, 01:16:21 PM
Actually the opposite is true - the photos are not that bad, and they have been used to prosecute, so there is no real good reason to release them, other than to provide fodder for the "OMG TEH US IS EVIL!" crowd.
the rational is that if the photos are released, more people will die as a result. There is no compelling reason to release them, so why do so?
Because the presumption that applies is exactly the opposite - everything the government does and every document the government hold is presumptively available to the public unless there is a compelling reason to withhold it. That's what it means to be a government for the people, of the people, by the people. The people don't have to explain or justify why they want to see things their government is doing; the government has to justify why they won't tell.
QuoteThere is all kinds of documents that are kept classified all the time. How is this any different?
Documents may be kept classified because they contain secret technical specs, or reveal secret intelligence info, or confidential strategic information, etc. This doesn't fall into that category - it's just embarassing to the government because it makes it look bad. That's not a justification for keeping the info classified.
There are a bunch of exceptions for FOIA. The last administration argued that in court. They lost three times. Now Obama is going for loss #4.
Quote from: Berkut on May 14, 2009, 03:24:50 PM
Apparently Obama does not agree with you. I imagine he is citing Exemption #1, in fact - possibly 7 as well.
They are relying on exemption 7. All four judges that have considered the issue have found against the government. The entire Second Circuit court of appeals rejected the en banc appeal.
Of course, it is the government's right to appeal to the Supreme Court if they honestly think the lower courts have it wrong. But it doesn't appear to me that Obama really thinks the 2nd circuit got the law wrong - giving him the full benefit of the doubt, the best that can be said is that he disagrees on policy grounds.
So what is the problem then? He has every right to go through the courts, that is what they are there for.
He should classify them all due to national security cocerns, then the ACLU and HRW and all the little people who love to point out how terrible the government is can challenge the classification, and we can spend the next decade arguing about it.
Works for me.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 14, 2009, 03:25:30 PM
Because the presumption that applies is exactly the opposite - everything the government does and every document the government hold is presumptively available to the public unless there is a compelling reason to withhold it.
And in this case, there is in fact a compelling reason to do so - releasing a bunch of pictures so that they can be used to inflame more hatred of Americans is dangerous and counter-productive. They serve no positive balancing effect, since there is no dispute over what they show, so the government, IMO, has an excellent case for leaving them out of the public.
Quote
That's what it means to be a government for the people, of the people, by the people. The people don't have to explain or justify why they want to see things their government is doing; the government has to justify why they won't tell.
Indeed, and so they have.
Quote
QuoteThere is all kinds of documents that are kept classified all the time. How is this any different?
Documents may be kept classified because they contain secret technical specs, or reveal secret intelligence info, or confidential strategic information, etc.
Or because their release can and will endanger lives and damage US interests.
Quote
This doesn't fall into that category - it's just embarassing to the government because it makes it look bad. That's not a justification for keeping the info classified.
That isn't a justification, but their use as propaganda to recruit more suicide bombers is, among other things. There is an actual, real world out there beyond the ivory tower you know.
Quote
There are a bunch of exceptions for FOIA. The last administration argued that in court. They lost three times. Now Obama is going for loss #4.
Good, I hope he manages to drag it out as long as possible. That is what the law is all about, right?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 14, 2009, 03:28:10 PM
They are relying on exemption 7. All four judges that have considered the issue have found against the government. The entire Second Circuit court of appeals rejected the en banc appeal.
Like I said, he should just classify them all, and let the ACLU spend a decade arguing against the classification. Maybe by the time they find a judge who will agree with them it will have blown over and the issue won't be as potentially damaging.
Quote from: Berkut on May 14, 2009, 03:29:42 PM
So what is the problem then? He has every right to go through the courts, that is what they are there for.
He has the right to appeal. But if he does so, he will have broken his promise to take a different approach on these issues.
QuoteHe should classify them all due to national security cocerns, then the ACLU and HRW and all the little people who love to point out how terrible the government is can challenge the classification, and we can spend the next decade arguing about it.
Works for me.
Doesn't work for me b/c it is fundamentally dishonest. the exective is supposed to uphold and enforce the law in good faith. It is not supposed to evade the law or render it ineffective by deliberately creating a morass of endless legal proceedings to forestall compliance until the citizen plaintiff runs out of resources or finally gets a final court order the government can't appeal before that happens.
This is the kind of dishonest and cycnical bull that the last admin pulled all the time. If the executive feels the law needs to be changed, have the balls to go to Congress and ask for it to be changed. You don't deliberately sabotage the law of the land you have sworn to uphold just because you either lack the courage to ask for a change, or because you know the people will never allow you to do what you want.
Quote from: Berkut on May 14, 2009, 03:34:22 PM
Good, I hope he manages to drag it out as long as possible. That is what the law is all about, right?
No the government is not supposed to advance legal positions they know or believe to be frivolous.
QuoteOr because their release can and will endanger lives and damage US interests.
That is false - it is far too broad a formulation. Anything could be argued to "damage US interests" - the release of basic budgetary data could damage US interest by scaring off foreign treasury investors.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 14, 2009, 03:38:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 14, 2009, 03:29:42 PM
So what is the problem then? He has every right to go through the courts, that is what they are there for.
He has the right to appeal. But if he does so, he will have broken his promise to take a different approach on these issues.
Then that is one of the many stupid promises he made that he is right to break, right up there with bailing on Iraq asap.
He is finding out that it isn't nearly as simple as it was in his ivory tower. There are real decisions that have to be made that have real consequences. The military is telling him that if he releases these photos, people will die as a result. I, for one, am glad he trusts them enough to listen.
Quote
QuoteHe should classify them all due to national security cocerns, then the ACLU and HRW and all the little people who love to point out how terrible the government is can challenge the classification, and we can spend the next decade arguing about it.
Works for me.
Doesn't work for me b/c it is fundamentally dishonest.
What does the law have to do with honesty?
Quote
the exective is supposed to uphold and enforce the law in good faith.
It is also charged with protecting American lives and interests. This is not exactly a new issue - the clash between security and transparency has been around for a long time.
Quote
It is not supposed to evade the law or render it ineffective by deliberately creating a morass of endless legal proceedings to forestall compliance until the citizen plaintiff runs out of resources or finally gets a final court order the government can't appeal before that happens.
But that isn't evading the law, that is in fact using the law in the way that lawyers use it all the time, even ones that work for the ACLU. It isn't like the demand that these photos be released is based on some noble love of the law.
Quote
This is the kind of dishonest and cycnical bull that the last admin pulled all the time.
Really?
I thought the bull that the last admin pulled was actually engaging in the abusive practices. Now you are arguing that not releasing pictures is the same thing? Pretty harsh.
Quote
If the executive feels the law needs to be changed, have the balls to go to Congress and ask for it to be changed.
I don't think Obama has said that the law should be changed. And again, in the actual world, decisions are not so pristine and obvious as they are to you. He isn't saying the law should be changed, he is saying that the law does not demand what the people who want to see pictures of "abuse" say that it demands. Which is perfectly within his rights, just as it is within the rights of the MoveOn crowd to demand the pictures so they can go on and on and on and on and on and on and on about how evil bush and Cheney are.
Quote
You don't deliberately sabotage the law of the land you have sworn to uphold just because you either lack the courage to ask for a change, or because you know the people will never allow you to do what you want.
That is quite the strawman. Who is sabotaging anything? He is the President, and it within his power to classify things. Then the ACLU can challenge that classification. That is all well within the law of the land, even if it pisses off the left who hasn't been forced to actually make real decisions outside the vacuum of their political theory.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 14, 2009, 03:39:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 14, 2009, 03:34:22 PM
Good, I hope he manages to drag it out as long as possible. That is what the law is all about, right?
No the government is not supposed to advance legal positions they know or believe to be frivolous.
Who says they are frivolous?
Quote
QuoteOr because their release can and will endanger lives and damage US interests.
That is false - it is far too broad a formulation. Anything could be argued to "damage US interests" - the release of basic budgetary data could damage US interest by scaring off foreign treasury investors.
Your objection is far too broad - anything that actually is damaging to US interests can be as easily dismissed. If you don't like the law, have the balls to ask that it be changed, rather than demanding that the courts simply ignore it.
FWIW I'm sure you don't look fat in the photos. :)
Quote from: The Brain on May 14, 2009, 03:54:35 PM
FWIW I'm sure you don't look fat in the photos. :)
THE CAMERA ADDS TEN POUNDS!
Quote from: Berkut on May 14, 2009, 03:52:48 PM
Who says they are frivolous?
Every court to address the issue.
QuoteYour objection is far too broad - anything that actually is damaging to US interests can be as easily dismissed. If you don't like the law, have the balls to ask that it be changed, rather than demanding that the courts simply ignore it.
Clever attempt to reuse my language - but it founders on a basic problem - there IS NO exemption in the law for anything that "can and will endanger lives and damage US interests" - so it is up to those who want such an exception to get the law changed to include it.
There is an exemption for "national security information concerning the national defense or foreign policy, provided that it has been properly classified in accordance with the substantive and procedural requirements of an executive order" but that is not at issue here.
There is also an exemption to protect the safety of a specific *individual* if revealing info about the individual would endanger their life. But that also is not at issue here.
The exemption you propose does not exist.
I'm disappointed by this, the photos should be released.
Quote from: garbon on May 14, 2009, 01:18:34 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 14, 2009, 01:16:21 PM
the rational is that if the photos are released, more people will die as a result. There is no compelling reason to release them, so why do so?
"Democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency."
Maxims are the last refuge of the incompetant.
Quote from: Berkut on May 14, 2009, 04:08:45 PM
and does the Court have the power to tell the president that his decision on a national security issue is subject to THEIR review?
Why not? The executive has been under attack from the other two branches for decades.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 14, 2009, 03:59:40 PM
Every court to address the issue.
No, they have simply said that the photos should be released, not that any attempt to continue the legal fight is by definition "frivolous".
Quote
Clever attempt to reuse my language - but it founders on a basic problem - there IS NO exemption in the law for anything that "can and will endanger lives and damage US interests" - so it is up to those who want such an exception to get the law changed to include it.
Of course there is, exemption #1.
Quote
There is an exemption for "national security information concerning the national defense or foreign policy, provided that it has been properly classified in accordance with the substantive and procedural requirements of an executive order" but that is not at issue here.
It most certainly is at issue here, since that is exactly what Obama should do, if the court decides the other issues do not pertain. He should "properly classify them" with an executive order. Problem solved, and I am sure you and the ACLU would be happy then.
Oh wait, no you wouldn't. Then they will challenge the classiffication as not being "proper", although the law is pretty blurry on that, isn't it? Sounds like the President has quite a bit of discretion there, and does the Court have the power to tell the president that his decision on a national security issue is subject to THEIR review?
An interesting question, and I think we should see how long it takes to resolve it.
Quote
There is also an exemption to protect the safety of a specific *individual* if revealing info about the individual would endanger their life. But that also is not at issue here.
I think a good argument can be made that it is at issue here, since the exemption says nothing about "specific" individuals. Certainly the military has claimed that release ofthe photos will not just endanger lives, but directly result in loss of life.
Quote
The exemption you propose does not exist.
Of course it does - the evasion of the exmeptions YOU propose is what does not exist. The exemptions are, of course, not all that precise (how could they be), and the President is the last say on what constitutes national security. I think if he classifies the documents, the court will be hard pressed to gainsay that decision.
And what is more, if he does that, it re-sets the debate. The ACLU/Moveon can go back and start a new lawsuit to challenge the classification, and that can wend it ways through the courts. Gogolawtalkers!
Quote from: Berkut on May 14, 2009, 03:51:33 PM
What does the law have to do with honesty?
Federal law requires legal arguments to be made in good faith, and not for the purposes of delay or harassment.
But the issue here is not abuse of the courts. It is with governance. The law may at times be indifferent to the truth. But those who would take on the power of governing the rest of us in a free state should honestly uphold their oaths of office.
QuoteIt is also charged with protecting American lives and interests.
That is neither in the Presidential oath of office nor in Article II. The federal government is a government of limited powers - and the President's responsibility to protect American lives and interests can be carried out only by means expressly delegated to him. It certainly can't be carried out by means contrary to the law he is obligated to enforce.
QuoteBut that isn't evading the law, that is in fact using the law in the way that lawyers use it all the time, even ones that work for the ACLU. It isn't like the demand that these photos be released is based on some noble love of the law.
The government is not like a private party in this respect though. A defense lawyer who knows his client is guilty can still defend him and do everything he can to get him off. But a prosecutor is not supposed to prosecute a person the prosecutors knows to be innocent, even if there are very good reasons to want that person behind bars. The government is held to a higher standard than an ambulance chaser.
QuoteI thought the bull that the last admin pulled was actually engaging in the abusive practices.
I don't think the admin actually engaged in or endorsed the activities at Abu Ghraib etc.
QuoteI don't think Obama has said that the law should be changed. And again, in the actual world, decisions are not so pristine and obvious as they are to you. He isn't saying the law should be changed, he is saying that the law does not demand what the people who want to see pictures of "abuse" say that it demands.
Problem is that it contradicts what he said on the same subject a few months ago. And I don't think it is reasonable to believe that he had a sudden ephiphany about the legal scope of exemptive authority under FOIA.
QuoteThat is quite the strawman. Who is sabotaging anything? He is the President, and it within his power to classify things. Then the ACLU can challenge that classification. That is all well within the law of the land, even if it pisses off the left who hasn't been forced to actually make real decisions outside the vacuum of their political theory.
If the classification is done in bad faith for the purpose of delay, then it is sabotage.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 14, 2009, 04:03:29 PM
I'm disappointed by this, the photos should be released.
Quote"My belief is the publication of these photos would not add any additional benefits to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals," Obama said in a brief appearance. "The most direct consequence would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and put our troops in greater danger."
Obama added that he's made it clear to military officials, however, that the abuse of detainees is "prohibited and will not be tolerated."
Obama told his legal advisers last week that he did not feel comfortable with the release of the photos because he believes they would endanger U.S. troops, and that the national security implications of such a release have not been fully presented in federal court
Nothing to be gained by their release (other than stroking the angst of the Moveon crowd and handing the people whipping up terrorism recruiting videos some material) and lots to be lost.
:worthless:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 14, 2009, 04:14:59 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 14, 2009, 03:51:33 PM
What does the law have to do with honesty?
Federal law requires legal arguments to be made in good faith, and not for the purposes of delay or harassment.
Of course, which is why lawyers never ever do anything of the sort, and why nobody ever hires lawyers to do such things.
Quote
But the issue here is not abuse of the courts. It is with governance. The law may at times be indifferent to the truth. But those who would take on the power of governing the rest of us in a free state should honestly uphold their oaths of office.
Indeed, which is why on this I am very impressed that Obama has not let his politics get in the way of his job.
Quote
QuoteIt is also charged with protecting American lives and interests.
That is neither in the Presidential oath of office nor in Article II.
Right. I guess he isn't actually responsible for protecting American lives or interests then. An interesting position to take.
Quote
The federal government is a government of limited powers - and the President's responsibility to protect American lives and interests can be carried out only by means expressly delegated to him.
Indeed. Good thing one of those means expressly delegated is his ability to define national security interests, and direct his legal team to protect American interests and lives.
Quote
It certainly can't be carried out by means contrary to the law he is obligated to enforce.
Of course not! thank goodness he isn't breaking any laws then, other than the "Get Teh Booshilers at all costs law!" But that one isn't in Article II either.
Quote
QuoteBut that isn't evading the law, that is in fact using the law in the way that lawyers use it all the time, even ones that work for the ACLU. It isn't like the demand that these photos be released is based on some noble love of the law.
The government is not like a private party in this respect though. A defense lawyer who knows his client is guilty can still defend him and do everything he can to get him off. But a prosecutor is not supposed to prosecute a person the prosecutors knows to be innocent, even if there are very good reasons to want that person behind bars. The government is held to a higher standard than an ambulance chaser.
And thank goodness Obama is holding himself to a higher standard than party hitman.
Quote
QuoteI don't think Obama has said that the law should be changed. And again, in the actual world, decisions are not so pristine and obvious as they are to you. He isn't saying the law should be changed, he is saying that the law does not demand what the people who want to see pictures of "abuse" say that it demands.
Problem is that it contradicts what he said on the same subject a few months ago.
But he has more information now, and better advice from people outside his party. And I am very pleased he is willing to listen to it, rather than slavishly hold to his political promises made in an effort to get elected.
Governing is certainly a lot harder than campaigning, although some people don't seem to understand when one stops and the other starts.
Quote
And I don't think it is reasonable to believe that he had a sudden ephiphany about the legal scope of exemptive authority under FOIA.
he explained his reversal rather satisfactorily I thought.
Quote
QuoteThat is quite the strawman. Who is sabotaging anything? He is the President, and it within his power to classify things. Then the ACLU can challenge that classification. That is all well within the law of the land, even if it pisses off the left who hasn't been forced to actually make real decisions outside the vacuum of their political theory.
If the classification is done in bad faith for the purpose of delay, then it is sabotage.
If it is done with the purpose of not releasing documents that the President believe represent a security threat to the US, then it is certainly not done in bad faith.
Quote from: Berkut on May 14, 2009, 04:12:19 PM
It most certainly is at issue here, since that is exactly what Obama should do, if the court decides the other issues do not pertain. He should "properly classify them" with an executive order. Problem solved, and I am sure you and the ACLU would be happy then.
He can't do that because there are procedures that must be followed that if properly followed would not permit the classification., and the information must be "national security information concerning the national defense or foreign policy." Even the Bush people didn't think this could pass the laugh test - that is why (to their credit) never made the Exemption 1 argument.
I understand your response is that the President can just say - damn the law, damn the procedures - i will just classify it and make them sue me. The problem is that doing that violates his oath of office. You may not think that is a big deal - that is your right. I do.
If that is meaningless to you, consider the consequences of endorsing such a mode of operation. Imagine Obama signs an executive order seizing all of Rush Limbaugh's property, money and equipment. Rush files a FOIA request to get documents from the government concerning the basis of the seizure. Obama says no - it's a national security issue and the docs are all classified. This is of course complete baloney but meanwhile Rush has to wind his way through the courts for years, with no money or means to hire a lawyer. In the Republic of Berkutland this is all fair game. But i would hope not in America.
QuoteI think a good argument can be made that it is at issue here, since the exemption says nothing about "specific" individuals.
It not only does but the courts have so held.
Quote from: Berkut on May 14, 2009, 04:23:25 PM
If it is done with the purpose of not releasing documents that the President believe represent a security threat to the US, then it is certainly not done in bad faith.
So if the president says he believes the purpose is to protect against a security threat, it must be in good faith? :blink:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 14, 2009, 11:16:13 AM
So the rationale is - the photos are so bad they show evidence of a crime, and therefore revealing them will force the executive branch to fulfill its responsiblity to enforce the law, a responsibility that it can evade if the photos are kept under wraps.
sorry, that just makes it worse.
Actually, I read the opposite. Look under 5 U.S.C § 552(b)(7); in addition to national security, information isn't covered under FOIA if it could taint a criminal investigation.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 14, 2009, 04:42:43 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 14, 2009, 11:16:13 AM
So the rationale is - the photos are so bad they show evidence of a crime, and therefore revealing them will force the executive branch to fulfill its responsiblity to enforce the law, a responsibility that it can evade if the photos are kept under wraps.
sorry, that just makes it worse.
Actually, I read the opposite. Look under 5 U.S.C § 552(b)(7); in addition to national security, information isn't covered under FOIA if it could taint a criminal investigation.
How can something "taint" a criminal investigation that isn't taking place or going to take place?
Quote from: Berkut on May 14, 2009, 04:16:27 PM
Nothing to be gained by their release (other than stroking the angst of the Moveon crowd and handing the people whipping up terrorism recruiting videos some material) and lots to be lost.
I disagree. I think there's plenty to be gained and very little to be lost. I think the way the terrorist recruitment thing works is that there's news that the US tortures, or send people to be tortured, there are detainee photos in the media (Abu Ghraib) and rather unpleasant reports by former detainees. That stuff permeates everywhere and creates anti-American feeling which then makes people more receptive to extremist arguments.
Releasing the photos and the documents (including the ones that demonstrates that torture works) I don't think would stoke anti-Americanism. It would probably further disgust everyone about the last administration but I think it would demonstrate that the US means it when they say that this stuff isn't tolerable. I think the automatic assumption that when the US President says 'we don't torture' that the US, in fact, didn't 'torture' is gone.
I actually think releasing the photos and saying they're wrong and, in my view, prosecuting the people who enacted this policy would build up America's popularity to a huge degree.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 14, 2009, 04:44:06 PM
How can something "taint" a criminal investigation that isn't taking place or going to take place?
Obama has stated he's not going after the individual base personnel, but he also doesn't want to preclude going after the personnel in the Bush administration who OK'ed it. There may yet be a criminal investigation, just not of each individual incidence.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 14, 2009, 04:49:40 PM
Obama has stated he's not going after the individual base personnel, but he also doesn't want to preclude going after the personnel in the Bush administration who OK'ed it. There may yet be a criminal investigation, just not of each individual incidence.
I realise this is impossible given how political the whole thing is but I wish Obama didn't have to state anything on this and prosecutions could be decided on the basis of whether it looked like a law was broken or not.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 14, 2009, 04:49:40 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 14, 2009, 04:44:06 PM
How can something "taint" a criminal investigation that isn't taking place or going to take place?
Obama has stated he's not going after the individual base personnel, but he also doesn't want to preclude going after the personnel in the Bush administration who OK'ed it. There may yet be a criminal investigation, just not of each individual incidence.
I was responding to Faelin's point that release of the photos would cause the admin to bring prosecutions it wouldn't otherwise bring - i.e. absent release of the photos, the prosecutions wouldn't be brought. By definition, you can't taint a criminal investigation that isn't occurring.
As to the broader point of whether a 7(A) exemption could apply here, the government has never advanced such a position and is not doing so now. For the very good reason that it doesn't apply - whatever investigations may be occuring, release of these photos is not going to interfere with it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 14, 2009, 05:00:26 PM
I realise this is impossible given how political the whole thing is but I wish Obama didn't have to state anything on this and prosecutions could be decided on the basis of whether it looked like a law was broken or not.
No worries, berkut assures me that Obama's decisionmaking on this is entirely non-political.
I want McCain back - at least you knew where you stood with the crazy old bastard.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 14, 2009, 05:00:26 PM
I realise this is impossible given how political the whole thing is but I wish Obama didn't have to state anything on this and prosecutions could be decided on the basis of whether it looked like a law was broken or not.
To an extent, yes, but humans are masters of doublespeak. "Whether it looked like a law was broken" is not the same as "certainty that a law was broken." Tons of evidence for more everyday trials is kept under wraps for precisely this reason. As despicable as the photos might be, there's more to proving an actus reus than a photograph (though they carry understandably heavy weight). Publication of photos would fuel a fresh round of having a case tried by the media, when there's a huge legal, as well as political gray area as to whether or not there even
was an actus reus.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 14, 2009, 05:07:45 PM
I was responding to Faelin's point that release of the photos would cause the admin to bring prosecutions it wouldn't otherwise bring - i.e. absent release of the photos, the prosecutions wouldn't be brought. By definition, you can't taint a criminal investigation that isn't occurring.
As to the broader point of whether a 7(A) exemption could apply here, the government has never advanced such a position and is not doing so now. For the very good reason that it doesn't apply - whatever investigations may be occuring, release of these photos is not going to interfere with it.
I was talking more about a possible 7(B) exemption. The biggest controversy is whether or not "torture" happened, by definition. This has gotten hugely political and polarized, and these photos would motivate for all the wrong reasons; emotionally, rather than logically.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 14, 2009, 05:19:28 PM
I was talking more about a possible 7(B) exemption. The biggest controversy is whether or not "torture" happened, by definition. This has gotten hugely political and polarized, and these photos would motivate for all the wrong reasons; emotionally, rather than logically.
That wasn't argued either. In light of the fact that there is no ongoing trial that would be affected, and the fact that the Abu Ghraib pictures were already widely released and viewed, I don't think there is much an argument there either.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 14, 2009, 05:15:08 PM
To an extent, yes, but humans are masters of doublespeak. "Whether it looked like a law was broken" is not the same as "certainty that a law was broken." Tons of evidence for more everyday trials is kept under wraps for precisely this reason.
That doesn't matter in terms of prosecutions. Of course, if it's decided that no law was broken, then there should be no prosecutions. What I dislike is the politics of Obama saying even if a law were broken there shouldn't be prosecutions. I think that's wrong and I think it's disgusting for a President to intervene in that way. If he wants to play the healer and setter of bones then pardon them if they're guilty.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 14, 2009, 05:59:53 PM
What I dislike is the politics of Obama saying even if a law were broken there shouldn't be prosecutions. I think that's wrong and I think it's disgusting for a President to intervene in that way. If he wants to play the healer and setter of bones then pardon them if they're guilty.
On that matter I have more sympathy. There is such a thing as prosecutorial discretion; the govt can and should make judgments about when to bring a prosecution and can consider possible collateral consequences in making that decision. I don't read Obama's call on that as endorsing a Nuremberg defense. I think it is a recognition that these are complex and difficult issues, and that the conduct of certain persons, while IMO clearly over the line, was no so far over as to say that the fact that they relied on what appeared to be bona fide Justice Dept legal opinion does not create valid extenuating circumstances. It's not akin to gassing people in concentration camps and then claiming you didn't know it was against international law because the gauleiter told you it was OK.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 14, 2009, 06:38:37 PM
It's not akin to gassing people in concentration camps and then claiming you didn't know it was against international law because the gauleiter told you it was OK.
Was gassing people in concentration camps against international law?
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 14, 2009, 05:59:53 PM
What I dislike is the politics of Obama saying even if a law were broken there shouldn't be prosecutions. I think that's wrong and I think it's disgusting for a President to intervene in that way. If he wants to play the healer and setter of bones then pardon them if they're guilty.
Normally I'd agree with you but I think it would cause a vicious cycle of each incoming president investigating the last. If we had huge hearings and trials every four to eight years like the on the level of the Clinton impeachment and trial our government would be paralysed. The sad fact is every adminstration commits some crimes or breaks some rules. Usually it's a minor thing. I don't see a good way to stop it without causing perputual crisis.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 14, 2009, 04:26:13 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 14, 2009, 04:12:19 PM
It most certainly is at issue here, since that is exactly what Obama should do, if the court decides the other issues do not pertain. He should "properly classify them" with an executive order. Problem solved, and I am sure you and the ACLU would be happy then.
He can't do that because there are procedures that must be followed that if properly followed would not permit the classification., and the information must be "national security information concerning the national defense or foreign policy." Even the Bush people didn't think this could pass the laugh test - that is why (to their credit) never made the Exemption 1 argument.
I understand your response is that the President can just say - damn the law, damn the procedures - i will just classify it and make them sue me. The problem is that doing that violates his oath of office. You may not think that is a big deal - that is your right. I do.
If that is meaningless to you, consider the consequences of endorsing such a mode of operation. Imagine Obama signs an executive order seizing all of Rush Limbaugh's property, money and equipment. Rush files a FOIA request to get documents from the government concerning the basis of the seizure. Obama says no - it's a national security issue and the docs are all classified. This is of course complete baloney but meanwhile Rush has to wind his way through the courts for years, with no money or means to hire a lawyer. In the Republic of Berkutland this is all fair game. But i would hope not in America.
No, that would not be fair game because I do not (in that case) think he would in fact be operating in good faith, and in fact I think one could make a impeachment case against him.
You have yet to explain WHY you think he is doing this if it is NOT in fact because he thinks it is a national security issue.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 14, 2009, 05:00:26 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 14, 2009, 04:49:40 PM
Obama has stated he's not going after the individual base personnel, but he also doesn't want to preclude going after the personnel in the Bush administration who OK'ed it. There may yet be a criminal investigation, just not of each individual incidence.
I realise this is impossible given how political the whole thing is but I wish Obama didn't have to state anything on this and prosecutions could be decided on the basis of whether it looked like a law was broken or not.
But this has nothing to do with the law, it is just politics. The entire thing is just politics.
If you took the politics out of it, there wouldn't be anything left.
Hmm... I wonder what Squeaker Pelosi has to say about all this..... :lmfao:
Quote
I want McCain back - at least you knew where you stood with the crazy old bastard.
Your beef with Obama is that you don't understand how he could betray your ivory tower view of how things ought to be - but he was right with you when this was all about winning, and beating the other tribe, and being oh so pure to your principles.
But see something happened to Obama that did not happen to you - he became President. And while you can easily sit here and just assume that the Pentagon wants to suppress this because they are embarrassed, he has to sit there in a room with someone like General Abienda telling him "If you release these pictures, Americans will die". I find your contention that this is and can only be motivated by some crass self interest rather naive and simplistic.
A great opinion piece that sums up my feelings rather nicely on Obama:
Quote
Obama is right on Abu Ghraib pictures Friday, 15 May 2009
For anyone living in an open and democratic country, the suppression of information is anathema. So President Barack Obama's decision to oppose the release of new pictures that show US troops abusing prisoners at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison seems, at first sight, to be deplorable and a contradiction of everything he stood for during his campaign. And this is indeed how it has been greeted by many of his most fervent supporters in the US and abroad. They put his latest move together with his decision not to prosecute CIA agents for the use of torture, and accuse him of having "sold out" to entrenched interests.
What might appear to make matters worse is that the White House had initially said it would not oppose a court ruling ordering the Pentagon to release the pictures by 28 May. It is only now, as that date approaches, that Mr Obama says he has changed his mind. Not only, you might say, has he betrayed his principles but he has vacillated and enacted a U-turn.
It is unlikely that Mr Obama's critics will be inclined to reverse tracks as smartly he has done, but they should think again. There is no question here of the administration trying to cover up something the US public does not know about. Publication of the first pictures of Abu Ghraib, in The New Yorker magazine, was completely justified. But what purpose would new pictures serve beyond confirming what is already known: that the "war on terror" fostered abuse of prisoners, which was unacceptable, probably illegal, and endemic?
This is one reason Mr Obama gave for opposing their release. The other was the anti-Americanism they could inflame and the additional danger this would pose to US troops. Some will still argue that he has heeded the warnings from his top brass rather than the better angels of his idealism. But this is not what we see. We see someone who took an informed decision, not as campaigner, but as President. He took the trouble to listen, to consider advice and then to explain why he had changed his mind. That is a mark not of weakness, but of a grown-up leader addressing a grown-up audience. We could do with a bit more of this around the world.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 14, 2009, 06:38:37 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 14, 2009, 05:59:53 PM
What I dislike is the politics of Obama saying even if a law were broken there shouldn't be prosecutions. I think that's wrong and I think it's disgusting for a President to intervene in that way. If he wants to play the healer and setter of bones then pardon them if they're guilty.
On that matter I have more sympathy. There is such a thing as prosecutorial discretion; the govt can and should make judgments about when to bring a prosecution and can consider possible collateral consequences in making that decision. I don't read Obama's call on that as endorsing a Nuremberg defense. I think it is a recognition that these are complex and difficult issues, and that the conduct of certain persons, while IMO clearly over the line, was no so far over as to say that the fact that they relied on what appeared to be bona fide Justice Dept legal opinion does not create valid extenuating circumstances. It's not akin to gassing people in concentration camps and then claiming you didn't know it was against international law because the gauleiter told you it was OK.
I would have a lot more respect for the calls to release these documents if I thought it was motivated by an actual desire to ascertain some truth.
The reality is that it is just motivated by the desire to have a good old fashion witch hunt. It is no different than Ken Starr subpoening anyone and everyone in his little witch hunt.
I want to clarify something here. Are these pictures just of the Abu G. thingy? Nothing besides that? If so, what purpose would they serve?
Quote from: Berkut on May 14, 2009, 03:35:47 PM
Like I said, he should just classify them all, and let the ACLU spend a decade arguing against the classification. Maybe by the time they find a judge who will agree with them it will have blown over and the issue won't be as potentially damaging.
Unfortunately, the law on classification does not allow arbitrary classifications for purposes of avoiding government embarassment.
And the judges have been consulted, and they have been unanimous in rejecting your position. The issue of anti-Americanism isn't goping to blow over in any forseeable future, so the damage done the administration by avoiding compliance with the law is worse than the benefits a delay in releasing these photos would accrue, IMO.
It isn't for that purpose, it is for the purpose of protecting national security and lives.
Saying it has something to do with embarrassment is only relevant in that the drive to get them published is to embarrass the government, that doesn't mean that the governments wants to protect them for that reason. I will go with the reasons given by the administration. I find them convincing.
Quote from: grumbler on May 14, 2009, 09:49:09 PM
And the judges have been consulted, and they have been unanimous in rejecting your position.
That actually is not true - the pictures have not been classified, so no judges have in fact ruled on said potential classification, at least so far as I know.
Now I'm all tingly with curiosity to see them.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2009, 11:47:52 PM
Now I'm all tingly with curiosity to see them.
Its as good a reason to release them as anyone has made.
If the pictures show female detainees the government has a moral obligation to release them! :mad:
If the detainees are males then not releasing the pictures is another sign of OBAMADOLF's homophobia and hate of the gay people. :mad:
Quote from: Berkut on May 14, 2009, 09:58:52 PM
That actually is not true - the pictures have not been classified, so no judges have in fact ruled on said potential classification, at least so far as I know.
The judges have been unanimous that these pictures do not classify as exceptions to FOIA. Obama cannot take unclassified information and suddenly classify it, BTW. He must have a reason to do so, and there must be no substantial argument that the information is not deserving of classification.
Plus, according to EO 12958, Sec. 1.5. (Classification Categories)
Quote
Information may not be considered for classification unless it concerns:
(a) military plans, weapons systems, or operations;
(b) foreign government information;
(c) intelligence activities (including special activities), intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology;
(d) foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources;
(e) scientific, technological, or economic matters relating to the national security;
(f) United States Government programs for safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities; or
(g) vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, projects or plans relating to the national security.
this material does not fall within any of the guidelines of material that
can be classified.
Maybe it qualifies as "un-intelligence activities"? :P
Quote from: grumbler on May 15, 2009, 07:01:24 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 14, 2009, 09:58:52 PM
That actually is not true - the pictures have not been classified, so no judges have in fact ruled on said potential classification, at least so far as I know.
The judges have been unanimous that these pictures do not classify as exceptions to FOIA.
Yeah, which is why the next step would be to take it to the next higher level of judges.
Or to change the terms under which the case has been brought, by classifying the material.
Quote
Obama cannot take unclassified information and suddenly classify it, BTW. He must have a reason to do so, and there must be no substantial argument that the information is not deserving of classification.
True enough. And he has a reason to do so, of course - because he was told by the competent authority that releasing the information is counter to US interests and will get people killed.
Quote
Plus, according to EO 12958, Sec. 1.5. (Classification Categories)Quote
Information may not be considered for classification unless it concerns:
(a) military plans, weapons systems, or operations;
(b) foreign government information;
(c) intelligence activities (including special activities), intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology;
(d) foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources;
(e) scientific, technological, or economic matters relating to the national security;
(f) United States Government programs for safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities; or
(g) vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, projects or plans relating to the national security.
this material does not fall within any of the guidelines of material that can be classified.
Hmmm, I think he can make an argument that this falls under section (d).
The President has rather wide discretionary powers when it comes to something as purely Executive as classification of material - it would be interesting if the courts would desire to get into the business of second guessing Executive power exercised under an Executive Order.
In any case, the ACLU can then bring another suit (and they will) challenging the classification. I wonder if Gates thinks this is worth doing anyway because at best the challenge fails, and at worst it takes another 4 years to go through the courts, or because there is some other trick up their sleeve. Or if he wasn't even considering the means by which the president could resist releasing the pictures, just asked Obama to do so, and let him worry about how.
The thing I do not get is that one of the reasons Obama gave for agreeing to release the pictures was that they were of the opinion that the legal battle was lost anyway - if that is the case, then why the reversal, no matter how convincing Gates might have been about the danger involved?
I don't buy the political argument that Obama caved to political pressure - politically, this is hurting him a lot more than it is helping him.
Not sure how accurate this is, but it is interesting if true:
Quote
A senior Pentagon official told FOX News that the government will shift its defense to arguing the negative national security implications that the release of the photos will have.
This legal approach was not employed from the start, the official said, because it was working poorly in the original case that challenged the release of the Abu Ghraib photos. That case was dropped because the photos were all leaked.
*barely skims the thread*
So does Europe hate Obama yet? :)
Quote from: Berkut on May 14, 2009, 08:23:40 PM
No, that would not be fair game because I do not (in that case) think he would in fact be operating in good faith, and in fact I think one could make a impeachment case against him.
You have yet to explain WHY you think he is doing this if it is NOT in fact because he thinks it is a national security issue.
What makes the action in bad faith is just "thinking it is a national security issue" isn't enough. The law was specifically designed to combat the abuse of Presidents hiding material that they subjectively thought involved "national security" issues - and to force the use of a defined objective standard. It doesn't matter how justified Obama thinks he is - he is still evading the law.
What makes this particular case so troubling is the line of reasoning used to justify withholding the material. It isn't that (as the FOIA exemptions contemplate) the material might reveal the identity of a covert operative (or witness), that it might reveal confidential intelligence methods or data, or the location of some sensitve material or vulnerable person. The basis for the concern here is simply that the pictures will make the US (and the US military specifically) *look bad*. The chain of reasoning that sees this as a national security issue goes:
1) The pictures (accurately!) show the US doing bad things and hence show the US in a bad light.
2) Showing the US in a bad light is bad for the US and encourages and emboldens its enemies.
This inference may hold but withholding public information on the basis of that kind of reasoning is a one of the key abuses FOIA was designed to stop. The judgment was made that the government shouldn't be able to keep evidence concerning its bad conduct (or the bad conduct of its agents) secret from its own people just because it would be embarassing. To take the opposite view would mean that anything that might be embarassing to the government can be kept secret from the public indefinitely. That is how countries like Russia or China or Iran do things. But it is not consistent with how real democracies operate.
QuoteBut this has nothing to do with the law, it is just politics. The entire thing is just politics.
If you took the politics out of it, there wouldn't be anything left.
If you can't see the very serious issues at principle here, that's unfortunate. It just goes to show I suppose that while most people will give lip serive to concepts like limtied government and the rule of law, when they prove inconvenient they are the first things to get thrown out the window.
That said, I do agree there is significant politics here. As in Obama keeping the generals happy and playing to the center by looking tough on national security. Based on your response, he has succeeded.
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2009, 08:00:06 AM
Yeah, which is why the next step would be to take it to the next higher level of judges.
That is always the next step, if one desires to continue to spend someone else's money to avoid the uncomfortable truth that one's position is legally untenable. It is not always a wise step to take, however.
QuoteTrue enough. And he has a reason to do so, of course - because he was told by the competent authority that releasing the information is counter to US interests and will get people killed.
Actually, I do not believe that you can support this assertion. Insofar as we have been told, these photos do not contain any information at all that has not already been released.
QuoteHmmm, I think he can make an argument that this falls under section (d).
What information in the photos pertains to "foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources"?
QuoteThe President has rather wide discretionary powers when it comes to something as purely Executive as classification of material - it would be interesting if the courts would desire to get into the business of second guessing Executive power exercised under an Executive Order.
Wide, but not infinitely wide. It would be interesting to see if the Obama Administration is going to evade laws it finds inconvenient to follow, like its predecessor. As JR points out, such hubris may indeed be an unavoidable feature of the office as currently structured; if Obama succumbs, that will say a lot.
QuoteIn any case, the ACLU can then bring another suit (and they will) challenging the classification. I wonder if Gates thinks this is worth doing anyway because at best the challenge fails, and at worst it takes another 4 years to go through the courts, or because there is some other trick up their sleeve. Or if he wasn't even considering the means by which the president could resist releasing the pictures, just asked Obama to do so, and let him worry about how.
I rather think that Gates was asked for an opinion on whether he thought the photos should be released, and he said "no." He wouldn't have offered that opinion as a lawyers, of course, but as a bureaucrat.
QuoteThe thing I do not get is that one of the reasons Obama gave for agreeing to release the pictures was that they were of the opinion that the legal battle was lost anyway - if that is the case, then why the reversal, no matter how convincing Gates might have been about the danger involved?
I don't buy the political argument that Obama caved to political pressure - politically, this is hurting him a lot more than it is helping him.
There are bureaucratic imperatives that are independent of partisan politics. I rather suspect that what we are seeing here is the effect of being surrounded by people whose bureaucratic mindset focus on short-term consequences and readily rationalize the denial of even legally obligatory disclosures.
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2009, 08:00:06 AM
The thing I do not get is that one of the reasons Obama gave for agreeing to release the pictures was that they were of the opinion that the legal battle was lost anyway - if that is the case, then why the reversal, no matter how convincing Gates might have been about the danger involved?
I don't think it is coincidental that this is happening at roughly the same time there was a major change to the army command structure. The Pentagon is very keen to keep these photos out of public distribution and no doubt they put pressure on the WH. Obama wants to keep up a good relationship with the top command. He needs them and Gates to secure his right flank politically on national security issues, especially after all the hysteria about how is acted too flexibly in his recent dealings abroad.
Quote from: Neil on May 14, 2009, 04:05:40 PM
Maxims are the last refuge of the incompetant.
I found that on great obama quotes 2.0 or something like that. :(
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2009, 08:00:06 AM
The President has rather wide discretionary powers when it comes to something as purely Executive as classification of material - it would be interesting if the courts would desire to get into the business of second guessing Executive power exercised under an Executive Order.
The courts have done so many times in the past and the discretionary authority is not as wide as one might assume.
The original FOIA contained the national security exemption that is now Section 552(b)(1)(A), but the statute was later amended to and the language in (B) -- that the information must be "in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order." In other words, regardless of the Presidents classificaiton authority under his executive order, the FOIA law independently empowers the courts to make judgments about whether the classification decision was made properly. And there have been dozens of cases where federal courts have rejected Exemption 1 designations and ordered disclosure.
Obama FOIA Memorandum dated April 17, 2009 (!) : http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/2009foiapost8.htm
QuoteWhile recognizing that the "disclosure obligation under the FOIA is not absolute," and that the FOIA contains exemptions to protect, for example, national security, personal privacy, privileged records, and law enforcement interests, the Guidelines stress that the President has directed agencies not to withhold information merely to prevent embarrassment, or because "errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears."
QuoteThe President and Attorney General have established sweeping new changes in the way transparency is to be viewed and administered across the Government. These principles require agencies to employ a comprehensive approach to transparency. This approach can be summarized in ten key elements that agencies must take into account in order to ensure that the fundamental commitment to open Government is realized.
1. The presumption of disclosure applies to all decisions involving the FOIA; agencies should keep that presumption foremost in their mind.
What can I say, it was a nice four weeks while it lasted.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 15, 2009, 09:13:55 AM
If you can't see the very serious issues at principle here, that's unfortunate.
Funny, I was just thinking the saem thing about you - how hard it is to see the real world consequences from your Ivory Tower of Law.
Quote
It just goes to show I suppose that while most people will give lip serive to concepts like limtied government and the rule of law, when they prove inconvenient they are the first things to get thrown out the window.
Oh please. That is like arguing that if you don't support people being allowed to yell fire in crowded theaters whenever they like, you are only paying lip service to freedom of speech.
All freedoms include the need to balance freedom with reason.
Quote
That said, I do agree there is significant politics here. As in Obama keeping the generals happy and playing to the center by looking tough on national security. Based on your response, he has succeeded.
Oh yeah, keeping those generals happy, why, that is just politics. Those assholes don't know anything, do they? Certainly not as much as your average lawyer about national security. Obama should just ignore what they think about silly things like protecting the lives of soldiers.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 15, 2009, 09:13:55 AM
This inference may hold but withholding public information on the basis of that kind of reasoning is a one of the key abuses FOIA was designed to stop.
There is no information being withheld at all, since the actions that the pictures depict are already a matter of public record. The only thing being withheld is the emotional propaganda that the Moveon crowd craves so much.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 15, 2009, 09:22:14 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2009, 08:00:06 AM
The thing I do not get is that one of the reasons Obama gave for agreeing to release the pictures was that they were of the opinion that the legal battle was lost anyway - if that is the case, then why the reversal, no matter how convincing Gates might have been about the danger involved?
I don't think it is coincidental that this is happening at roughly the same time there was a major change to the army command structure. The Pentagon is very keen to keep these photos out of public distribution and no doubt they put pressure on the WH. Obama wants to keep up a good relationship with the top command. He needs them and Gates to secure his right flank politically on national security issues, especially after all the hysteria about how is acted too flexibly in his recent dealings abroad.
So why does Gates and the military care?
You and grumbler keep talking about embarassment, as if it is *certain* that they are a bunch of lying assholes who will say anything to avoid a few pictures being released - even though it isn't embarassing to them at all.
Is it not possible that they truly and honestly believe that releasing these pictures will in fact have a profoundly negative effect on out ability to accomplish or missions in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, or will actually result in people being killed?
Or is that just impossible to accept - that these men could be operating in good faith? After all, they are the military, right?
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2009, 09:47:06 AM
Funny, I was just thinking the saem thing about you - how hard it is to see the real world consequences from your Ivory Tower of Law.
Of course I see the real world consequences - I see them every day I look though the south windows and notice the missing Towers. But it is always possible to get more security by sacrificing more freedom. The question is where to draw the line. In some countries the line is drawn by the Supreme Leader and his coterie. In this country it is drawn by the elected branches of government though a process of law. Either the executive respect that process or it does not. If it does not, it is not worthy of our respect.
What you still don't seem to get is that the issue of whether national security justifies withholding the material is NOT at issue here. That issue was already decided by the existing laws we have in place. The way to deal with that if you disagree with that outcome is change the law and give the president more discretion. Not egg him on to evade it.
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2009, 09:53:18 AM
Or is that just impossible to accept - that these men could be operating in good faith? After all, they are the military, right?
I am perfectly willing to grant that these men may be acting in good faith AND politically (to bury an embarassment as best as they can) at the same time.
Funny that you are not willing to extend the same courtesy to your fellow citizen-members of the ACLU.
ACLU :wub:
Of course it is at issue here - the issue of classification has not been tested in the courts at all.
I find it odd that you are arguing that even the attempt to test it is somehow a contravention of the law, when it clearly is not. It may not work, but that doesn't make it illegal to try. You lvoe the "process of law" except when someone uses it in a fashion that doesn't meet your narrow partisan political desires - then it is "not worthy of our respect" because they "don't respect the process". Of course, what you mean by that is that they don't respect YOUR conclusion, and actually wish to explore the process. "The process" includes things like seeing whether a presidential classification can hold up to legal review. There is not reason to simply assume that it cannot, and therefore even trying is some grave crime.
It is always possible to get more freedom by sacrificing some security. The question is where to draw the line. In some countries, we do this by the process of *three* branches of government, rather than just slavishly following the dictate of one. The Executive attempting to exercise their prerogative is not by definition in contravention of the law. If Obama refuses to release the photos after being ordered to do so and the legal options are exhausted, THEN you can start bleating about how the US is just like North Korea.
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2009, 09:49:09 AM
There is no information being withheld at all, since the actions that the pictures depict are already a matter of public record. The only thing being withheld is the emotional propaganda that the Moveon crowd craves so much.
I agree. Thus, the photos
cannot be classified. Only information can be classified. The law and the E.O. are crystal-clear on that.
Now that we have classification out of the way, all that remains is the claim of FOIA exemption on the basis of "Berkut and Obama say so." That's a pretty rough row to hoe.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 15, 2009, 10:02:03 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2009, 09:53:18 AM
Or is that just impossible to accept - that these men could be operating in good faith? After all, they are the military, right?
I am perfectly willing to grant that these men may be acting in good faith AND politically (to bury an embarassment as best as they can) at the same time.
That makes no sense - if they say they want to keep them classified for a particular reason, while the real reason is both not the reason given and trite and illegal, then they are NOT operating in good faith, by definition.
It is rather deceitful of you to say that you accept they are operating in good faith out of one side of your mouth while you spend the entire argument insisting that they are just trying to cover their ass. Rather not in good faith of you, in fact.
Quote
Funny that you are not willing to extend the same courtesy to your fellow citizen-members of the ACLU.
I have yet to see anyone, ACLU or yourself, make any kind of coherent argument for why these pictures need to be in the public domain beyond "Because we want them to be!". I HAVE seen a very coherent and credible argument from the military that has nothing to do with your constantly repeated "They just don't want to be embarrassed!" strawman that makes no sense.
I have also seen plenty of bleating hacks going on and on about throwing Cheney in jail, "getting" the people responsible for the last 8 years, balhblahblah and their emo rage at their Chosen One not following through on his campaign promise to do the same. So no, I am not willing to extend that courtesy to them, since the evidence rather clearly shows that they are not operating in anything like good faith or with respectable motives.
If the reverse is true, and you have some actual evidence that Obama and Gates are lying, and this is really all about how embarrassed they would be if they were released (which makes no sense at all since the information is already out there), feel free to share it with us. Until then, I am operating under the reasonable presumption that they are not lying out of their ass about their motives.
Quote from: grumbler on May 15, 2009, 10:10:56 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2009, 09:49:09 AM
There is no information being withheld at all, since the actions that the pictures depict are already a matter of public record. The only thing being withheld is the emotional propaganda that the Moveon crowd craves so much.
I agree. Thus, the photos cannot be classified. Only information can be classified. The law and the E.O. are crystal-clear on that.
Not at all crystal clear. In fact, documents are classified all the time, and pictures are certainly documents.
Quote
Now that we have classification out of the way, all that remains is the claim of FOIA exemption on the basis of "Berkut and Obama say so." That's a pretty rough row to hoe.
No, the row of the professional military members and the President say that it is a national security issue, even if the ultra liberal lawyer and school teacher don't agree is not such a rough row to hoe, actually. In the balance of things, I am going to defer to the judgment of the generals and President over the lawyer and the teacher.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 15, 2009, 09:59:17 AM
What you still don't seem to get is that the issue of whether national security justifies withholding the material is NOT at issue here.
Funny, the President doesn't seem to think that is the case, and the courts have not ruled on that at all. So why do you keep insisting that to even test this is a problem?
Quote
That issue was already decided by the existing laws we have in place.
Incorrect, as has been shown already.
Quote
The way to deal with that if you disagree with that outcome is change the law and give the president more discretion.
Why? The argument is that he already has the necessary discretion, he just hasn't exercised it yet.
QuoteNot egg him on to evade it.
Not doing that, nor is anyone.
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2009, 10:23:47 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 15, 2009, 09:59:17 AM
What you still don't seem to get is that the issue of whether national security justifies withholding the material is NOT at issue here.
Funny, the President doesn't seem to think that is the case, and the courts have not ruled on that at all. So why do you keep insisting that to even test this is a problem?
The only reason the courts haven't ruled on it is that the last administration thought that the legal arugment was so weak and frivolous they didn't bother making it.
Going out a farther limb than the Bush admin was willing to go on a national security legal exemption is not a good sign.
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2009, 10:08:20 AM
Of course it is at issue here - the issue of classification has not been tested in the courts at all.
I find it odd that you are arguing that even the attempt to test it is somehow a contravention of the law, when it clearly is not. It may not work, but that doesn't make it illegal to try. You lvoe the "process of law" except when someone uses it in a fashion that doesn't meet your narrow partisan political desires - then it is "not worthy of our respect" because they "don't respect the process". Of course, what you mean by that is that they don't respect YOUR conclusion, and actually wish to explore the process. "The process" includes things like seeing whether a presidential classification can hold up to legal review. There is not reason to simply assume that it cannot, and therefore even trying is some grave crime.
It is always possible to get more freedom by sacrificing some security. The question is where to draw the line. In some countries, we do this by the process of *three* branches of government, rather than just slavishly following the dictate of one. The Executive attempting to exercise their prerogative is not by definition in contravention of the law. If Obama refuses to release the photos after being ordered to do so and the legal options are exhausted, THEN you can start bleating about how the US is just like North Korea.
Classification is impossible if, as we all agree, there is no information that has not already been disclosed. Such classification is expressly prohibited by EO unless the released info can be recovered.
QuoteInformation may be reclassified after declassification and release to the public under proper authority only in accordance with the following conditions:
(1) the reclassification action is taken under the personal authority of the agency head or deputy agency head, who determines in writing that the reclassification of the information is necessary in the interest of the national security;
(2) the information may be reasonably recovered; and
(3) the reclassification action is reported promptly to the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office.
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2009, 10:08:20 AM
I find it odd that you are arguing that even the attempt to test it is somehow a contravention of the law, when it clearly is not.
Now you're in strawman mode - read my first comment on this.
Of course Obama can test the law though appeal, but it isn't proper to do that if you think the legal position is no good and you are only doing it for the purposes of delay. That is what Obama's own memo on this issue says last month. And Obama already considered the legal question at issue here and came to the opposite conclusion.
QuoteI have yet to see anyone, ACLU or yourself, make any kind of coherent argument for why these pictures need to be in the public domain beyond "Because we want them to be!"
They need to be in the public domain because they are public documents. The people don't have to justify to the government why they want to examine the government's business.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 15, 2009, 10:26:31 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2009, 10:23:47 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 15, 2009, 09:59:17 AM
What you still don't seem to get is that the issue of whether national security justifies withholding the material is NOT at issue here.
Funny, the President doesn't seem to think that is the case, and the courts have not ruled on that at all. So why do you keep insisting that to even test this is a problem?
The only reason the courts haven't ruled on it is that the last administration thought that the legal argument was so weak and frivolous they didn't bother making it.
So? Isn't that a perfectly normal legal procedure - making a particular argument does not preclude making other ones of the first doesn't pan out.
They thought that argument A was better than argument B, so they went with argument A. That says nothing about B, except that someone thought they would have better luck with the other one.
Quote
Going out a farther limb than the Bush admin was willing to go on a national security legal exemption is not a good sign.
Right, because we all know that this is really all about Bush, again. And if Bush didn't make an argument, then I guess that taints it for all time. Funny, you never expressed much respect for the Bush administration legal competency before now.
You are clearly arguing from a strictly results standpoint, and taking on the "side" of the ACLU. I am not willing to do so, and am perfectly happy seeing the process itself work itself out, rather than deciding ahead of time what the answer must be based on my political ideology.
If in fact you are correct, even from your conclusion first argument, and Obama does not have the power to classify those documents, then the courts will figure that out, and you can look at pictures of naked terrorists stacked in pyramids or whatever to your hearts content after the process happens.
What I don't understand is why the supposed legal process champion is so insistent that the process be short circuited, and we jump straight to the conclusion. Its almost like you only really care about the process if it leads to the "right answer.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 15, 2009, 10:29:19 AM
They need to be in the public domain because they are public documents. The people don't have to justify to the government why they want to examine the government's business.
I expressly noted that in this response, which you conveniently cut out.
They do not have to justify it to the government, they do have to justify it to *me* if they want *me* to have any respect for their motives - which is what YOU asked.
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2009, 10:19:37 AM
Not at all crystal clear. In fact, documents are classified all the time, and pictures are certainly documents.
No, neither documents nor pictures are ever classified. Information is classified, and documents and pictures not containing classified information cannot be classified.
QuoteNo, the row of the professional military members and the President say that it is a national security issue, even if the ultra liberal lawyer and school teacher don't agree is not such a rough row to hoe, actually. In the balance of things, I am going to defer to the judgment of the generals and President over the lawyer and the teacher.
No, there is no tough row to hoe to demonstrate that some generals and presidents don't want to release the photos for "national security issues," but that isn't what anyone is arguing. What people are arguing is whether the law applies to the president and his Generals even when it is inconvenient to them. I will take the views of the ultra-liberal lawyer and school teachers who are citing actual US law and policy over a poster who simply appeals (without attribution) to authority. Your deference to authority is noted, but should convince no one, especially as the law and policy contradict you and your authorities.
Quote from: grumbler on May 15, 2009, 10:28:27 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2009, 10:08:20 AM
Of course it is at issue here - the issue of classification has not been tested in the courts at all.
I find it odd that you are arguing that even the attempt to test it is somehow a contravention of the law, when it clearly is not. It may not work, but that doesn't make it illegal to try. You lvoe the "process of law" except when someone uses it in a fashion that doesn't meet your narrow partisan political desires - then it is "not worthy of our respect" because they "don't respect the process". Of course, what you mean by that is that they don't respect YOUR conclusion, and actually wish to explore the process. "The process" includes things like seeing whether a presidential classification can hold up to legal review. There is not reason to simply assume that it cannot, and therefore even trying is some grave crime.
It is always possible to get more freedom by sacrificing some security. The question is where to draw the line. In some countries, we do this by the process of *three* branches of government, rather than just slavishly following the dictate of one. The Executive attempting to exercise their prerogative is not by definition in contravention of the law. If Obama refuses to release the photos after being ordered to do so and the legal options are exhausted, THEN you can start bleating about how the US is just like North Korea.
Classification is impossible if, as we all agree, there is no information that has not already been disclosed.
In fact these documents have not been disclosed.
In fact, the last time this came up with the AG photos, the Admin was considering doing this until the photos themselves were leaked, making the point moot.
So yes, you most certainly can classify the photos, even if everyone already knows what is in them.
No, there is no tough row to hoe to demonstrate that some generals and presidents don't want to release the photos for "national security issues," but that isn't what anyone is arguing.
[/quote]
Actually that is precisely what *they* are arguing. Granted, it isn't the sterawman you have constructed for them to argue, but that is largely immaterial.
Quote
What people are arguing is whether the law applies to the president and his Generals even when it is inconvenient to them.
Really? Where does Obama or Gates argue that the law doesn't apply to them? I am pretty sure neither said any such thing.
Quote
I will take the views of the ultra-liberal lawyer and school teachers who are citing actual US law and policy over a poster who simply appeals (without attribution) to authority.
I will take the authoritiies who have actual expertise over the opinions of the lawyer and teacher who seem to enjoy crafting arguments for the other side rather than actually providing evidence.
Quote
Your deference to authority is noted, but should convince no one, especially as the law and policy contradict you and your authorities.
Again, appeal to authority where there is none is not convincing in the face of other authorities who disagree with your conclusions about what the law and policy state.
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2009, 10:33:46 AM
So? Isn't that a perfectly normal legal procedure - making a particular argument does not preclude making other ones of the first doesn't pan out.
Actually now that you mention it, it isn't. An appeals court will usually refuse to hear an argument that wasn't made at the original trial court level. Which means if Obama does seek Supreme Court review, and it is granted, the Supreme Court will very likely refuse to allow him to make a national security exemption argument.
What he could do is drop the appeal but classify the documents now, and then use that as a basis to start the whole legal ball rolling from scratch. But that has its own problems.
QuoteYou are clearly arguing from a strictly results standpoint, and taking on the "side" of the ACLU. I am not willing to do so, and am perfectly happy seeing the process itself work itself out, rather than deciding ahead of time what the answer must be based on my political ideology.
Of course, it is exactly the opposite. You are arguing from the result standpoint that the pictures shouldn't be released for policy reasons, and if the law does not permit withholding it, then the law should be evaded or ignored, or spurious arguments concocted to delay the inevitable for a long as possible and obstruct the right to obtain it.
My point is entirely divorced from the results standpoint. I have taken no position on whether the release of the material would be a good idea or a bad idea. I haven't supported or condemned the ACLU's decision to seek release of the material in the first place. I only take the view that having sought the release, the government must comply.
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2009, 10:38:17 AM
In fact these documents have not been disclosed.
these documents have been disclosed. It is only the photos which are at issue, and they contain 9as well all agree) no information not in the documents.
QuoteIn fact, the last time this came up with the AG photos, the Admin was considering doing this until the photos themselves were leaked, making the point moot.
So yes, you most certainly can classify the photos, even if everyone already knows what is in them.
Cite, please? Mere assertion is unpersuasive.
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2009, 10:41:19 AM
Actually that is precisely what *they* are arguing. Granted, it isn't the sterawman you have constructed for them to argue, but that is largely immaterial.
:lmfao: I say that there is not any dispute over what the Administration is arguing, and then you falsely claim that I say there
is a dispute and that my claim is a strawman? :lmfao:
QuoteReally? Where does Obama or Gates argue that the law doesn't apply to them? I am pretty sure neither said any such thing.
When Obama argues that these photos are not subject to FOIA, he is arguing that the clear provisions of FOIA that disagree with his claim do not apply.
QuoteI will take the authoritiies who have actual expertise over the opinions of the lawyer and teacher who seem to enjoy crafting arguments for the other side rather than actually providing evidence.
You have cited no such authorities.
QuoteAgain, appeal to authority where there is none is not convincing in the face of other authorities who disagree with your conclusions about what the law and policy state.
My appeal is not to authority, but to law whose provisions I have cited. You have cited nothing, merely appealed to authority (and even then without cites).
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2009, 10:41:19 AM
Again, appeal to authority where there is none is not convincing in the face of other authorities who disagree with your conclusions about what the law and policy state.
An additional thought along these lines: none of the authorities you cite claim to disagree with me about what the law and policy state. It is only you who so disagree. The authorities simply state that they think bad things would happen if the law was applied. They may well be right. But the law is the law. Bureaucratic imperatives pretty much force them to take a worse-case position on the subject, because they are, after all, the people who would be blamed if they followed the law and released the photos.
We are not driven by bureaucratic imperatives, and are probably in a better position to state that the law is the law than those who will suffer (unjustly, to be sure) by following the law. That does not make us superior in judgement, simply superior in objectivity. Our employees, Obama, Gates, and company, would do better in the long run to simply submit to the law that we have, through other employees, established. As GW Bush found out, in the end the law will out.
When I saw this I knew it was perfect for Languish! :lol: :nerd:
I can't believe I'd forgotten this episode until I read this.
http://www.slate.com/id/2217905/
QuoteThere Are Four Lights!Revisiting Star Trek: The Next Generation's eerily prescient torture episode.
By Juliet LapidosUpdated Thursday, May 7, 2009, at 4:28 PM ET
Nestled within J.J. Abrams' new Star Trek movie is a standard Hollywood torture scene. Nero, the Romulan antagonist, straps Capt. Pike of the Enterprise to a futuristic hospital gurney and demands secret defense codes. Naturally, Pike refuses. So—in a nod to Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan—Nero forces a mind-control insect down the captain's throat as he stoically recites his name, rank, and serial number. Torture, here, is routine—not an ethical atrocity but an item on the blockbuster checklist—and predictable: The captain has the information his interrogator needs, but, as long as he's in his right mind, he's able to resist divulging it.
It's too bad Abrams didn't look deeper into the Star Trek canon for inspiration. There is a remarkable depiction of torture in Star Trek: The Next Generation, one that is both more sophisticated than the Capt. Pike scenario and more pertinent to current affairs than the ticking-time-bomb set pieces of 24. In an episode from the series' sixth season, Capt. Picard embarks on a mission to destroy a biological weapon and is taken prisoner by a hostile alien race, the Cardassians. Believing that Picard is privy to strategic military secrets, the Cardassians inject him with a truth serum. When this technique fails to produce information, the Cardassians string up their captive in a stress position, strip him naked, and subject him to extreme physical torment—zapping him with a pain-administering device. For good measure, the lead Cardassian interrogator also devises a test meant to inflict mental anguish: He points four bright lights at Picard and asks him, repeatedly, to say that there are five. (A clear homage to the four-vs.-five-fingers sequence in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four.)
Powerful when it aired in 1992, the episode is even more resonant in 2009. When Picard's comrades on the Enterprise learn of Picard's capture, they insist that the Cardassians abide by the terms of a Geneva-like "Solanis Convention." The Cardassians rebuff the request: "The Solanis Convention applies to prisoners of war ... [Picard] will be treated as a terrorist."
Torture scenes are typically an opportunity to demonstrate a protagonist's fortitude or an antagonist's ruthlessness. In this episode, however, torture is an exercise in futility. Picard doesn't have the information the Cardassians are after. They can zap him all they want, but they'll never learn the Federation's secrets. Picard states, truthfully, that he knows nothing of value, but the interrogator refuses to believe him and to let him go. Torture is thus portrayed not as a reasonable if barbaric strategy but as a waste of time. That is, not really a strategy at all.
The extended torture sessions take a toll not just on Picard but on his interrogator as well. The more time the Cardassian spends with Picard, the more he becomes fixated on breaking his prisoner. And so the supposed goal of torture—information—is sidelined, while the means by which the goal will theoretically be achieved—mental submission—becomes an end in itself. As Picard puts it, "Torture has never been a reliable means of extracting information. It is ultimately self-defeating as a means of control. One wonders it is still practiced."
The episode acknowledges, however, that even the most determined prisoner is no match for acute suffering. In a last-ditch attempt to break Picard, the Cardassian interrogator offers him a choice: Either state that there are five lights and enjoy a life of comfort, or insist that there are four and prepare for more torture. Before Picard can answer, two Cardassian guards enter and reveal that the Enterprise has brokered the captain's release. "There are four lights!" Picard shouts, in what seems like a triumph. Later, though, he admits to a fellow officer that he was on the brink of succumbing: "I would have told him anything. Anything at all. But more than that, I believed that I could see five lights." The interrogator has, in fact, won the battle of wills, though he'll never have the satisfaction of knowing it. But what, exactly, has he won? In the end, Picard was willing to tell his captor anything at all and was so distraught that he was willing to believe a transparent falsehood. It follows that any further information would have been hopelessly compromised.
The torture scene in the new Star Trek does not glorify the practice, but it doesn't question it, either. From the interrogator's perspective, it's an effective way of extracting vital information. For Capt. Pike, it's a winnable test. The Next Generation take is darker and more politically progressive: Torture is counterproductive for the interrogator and devastating—both physically and emotionally—for the subject. It makes one wonder it is still practiced.
Ruh-roh...
Quote from: UK Telegraph
Abu Ghraib abuse photos 'show rape'
Photographs of alleged prisoner abuse which Barack Obama is attempting to censor include images of apparent rape and sexual abuse, it has emerged.
By Duncan Gardham, Security Correspondent and Paul Cruickshank
Last Updated: 8:21AM BST 28 May 2009
Iraq prison abuse: Abu Ghraib abuse photos 'show rape'
At least one picture shows an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner while another is said to show a male translator raping a male detainee.
Further photographs are said to depict sexual assaults on prisoners with objects including a truncheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube.
Another apparently shows a female prisoner having her clothing forcibly removed to expose her breasts.
Detail of the content emerged from Major General Antonio Taguba, the former army officer who conducted an inquiry into the Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq.
Allegations of rape and abuse were included in his 2004 report but the fact there were photographs was never revealed. He has now confirmed their existence in an interview with the Daily Telegraph.
The graphic nature of some of the images may explain the US President's attempts to block the release of an estimated 2,000 photographs from prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan despite an earlier promise to allow them to be published.
Maj Gen Taguba, who retired in January 2007, said he supported the President's decision, adding: "These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency.
"I am not sure what purpose their release would serve other than a legal one and the consequence would be to imperil our troops, the only protectors of our foreign policy, when we most need them, and British troops who are trying to build security in Afghanistan.
"The mere description of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it."
In April, Mr Obama's administration said the photographs would be released and it would be "pointless to appeal" against a court judgment in favour of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
But after lobbying from senior military figures, Mr Obama changed his mind saying they could put the safety of troops at risk.
Earlier this month, he said: "The most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to inflame anti-American public opinion and to put our troops in greater danger."
It was thought the images were similar to those leaked five years ago, which showed naked and bloody prisoners being intimidated by dogs, dragged around on a leash, piled into a human pyramid and hooded and attached to wires.
Mr Obama seemed to reinforce that view by adding: "I want to emphasise that these photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib."
The latest photographs relate to 400 cases of alleged abuse between 2001 and 2005 in Abu Ghraib and six other prisons. Mr Obama said the individuals involved had been "identified, and appropriate actions" taken.
Maj Gen Taguba's internal inquiry into the abuse at Abu Ghraib, included sworn statements by 13 detainees, which, he said in the report, he found "credible based on the clarity of their statements and supporting evidence provided by other witnesses."
Among the graphic statements, which were later released under US freedom of information laws, is that of Kasim Mehaddi Hilas in which he says: "I saw [name of a translator] ******* a kid, his age would be about 15 to 18 years. The kid was hurting very bad and they covered all the doors with sheets. Then when I heard screaming I climbed the door because on top it wasn't covered and I saw [name] who was wearing the military uniform, putting his **** in the little kid's ***.... and the female soldier was taking pictures."
The translator was an American Egyptian who is now the subject of a civil court case in the US.
Three detainees, including the alleged victim, refer to the use of a phosphorescent tube in the sexual abuse and another to the use of wire, while the victim also refers to part of a policeman's "stick" all of which were apparently photographed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5395830/Abu-Ghraib-abuse-photos-show-rape.html
I really hope this is false.
Valmy's Arab linguists are a threat to the military.
Some pretty extreme images have already been released or leaked. I remember one of a guy who was smeared in shit, made to shove a banana up his arse, pinned in foam between two stretchers (and sat on). The last pictures of him where ones of him banging his head against a metal door until he was bleeding rather heavily. That last one is believed to have been self-inflicted.
I see no reason to release the photos, and neither does the President. Good enough for me.
But here, grumbler and Jewn Robinson, is a temporary fix for your anti-Americanism--
Quote from: grumbler on May 15, 2009, 10:35:55 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2009, 10:19:37 AM
Not at all crystal clear. In fact, documents are classified all the time, and pictures are certainly documents.
No, neither documents nor pictures are ever classified. Information is classified, and documents and pictures not containing classified information cannot be classified.
I know that during WWII, documents and photographs were definately withheld from release, and while some of them may have not been classified, but rather simply withheld, I am under the impression that some of them were indeed classified.
Of course, that doesn't mean that today's practice is the same as that of 2/3 of a century ago. But I don't have a security clearance, so I don't know what's classified and what's not, so I can't say if it's the same as it used to be. And if I did, I couldn't tell you anyway. ;)
Quote from: Valmy on May 14, 2009, 11:55:19 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on May 13, 2009, 10:11:04 PM
The gov't didn't take the pictures, the perps did.
Military security allows people to take personal snapshots of interrogations of prisoners? WTF?
I got pictures far worst than that.
"Military security" is nothing more than a couple bored MPs that hate their lives and never take an step outside the wire.
I don't have pictures of interrogations, because I don't do that.
I have done a couple missions in which the gathering of tactical intel have been necesary, and I usually get kicked out of the room by my LT because I can tell from a mile away when a moonslim is lying, and I tend to lose my patience rather quickly.
I wasn't built for interrogations.
Other dudes can do that job far more effectively than me.
But I do have great pictures.