new photos: "abuse" or "torture"?

[JoeTheJuggler]

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

We're told that these photos are of "abuse" or "humiliation" but not "torture".

One point I've wondered about is that some of these incidents involve forcing the prisoners to do degrading acts (masturbation, and so on).

How were they forced to do this?

If the coercion was threat of imminent death (like holding a gun to their heads or even threatening to shoot them if they don't do it), it fits the definition of torture.

The U.S. Code, Title 18, Pat 1, Chapter 113C, section 2340 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html), 2.C defines one type of severe mental pain as the prolonged mental pain caused by "the threat of imminent death".

I don't really see any way you can coerce someone to do these degrading acts in this context without it being torture.

This is aside from the mental pain caused by the humiliation itself.

[Brainster]

Looks like Obama's reversed field (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/12/AR2009051203961.html) on this one:

The Obama administration signaled yesterday that it may be rethinking its promise to release several dozen photos depicting abuse or alleged abuse of detainees held in U.S. custody abroad.

[Oliver]

Looks like Obama's reversed field (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/12/AR2009051203961.html) on this one:


Yeah, and it sucks. Obama: "Photos aren't as bad as Abu Ghraib, but they could damage America nonetheless" :boggled:

- Story Highlights NEW: Obama says releasing photos would "further flame anti-American opinion"
- ACLU attorney says Obama's decision goes against his promise
- Gates says commanders "expressed very serious reservations" about release
- Photos show detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2001 and 2006

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

[Monketey Ghost]

Sorry. That is crap. "Damage America". Sheesh.

[JoeTheJuggler]

He also claimed that releasing the photos would have a "chilling effect" on investigation and prosecution of torture. I don't understand that logic in the least.

ETA: I do understand that the photos will "inflame the enemies of America". I'd like to point out that it's not the release of the photos that would do that, but the commission of the acts shown in the photos. I think the superficial investigation and slap-on-the-wrist punishments that have been meted out will also "inflame the enemies of America". I don't think it's a good idea to decide what's right wrt to these matters based on how the "enemies of America" will react. I think instead, we should abide by our legal obligations.

Anyway, I really wanted to focus on the question I asked in the OP. How can you possibly force someone to do some of these things without it being torture? Why does everyone still want to call it "abuse" when we know that at least some of these photos depict torture?

[BonkingBear]

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

We're told that these photos are of "abuse" or "humiliation" but not "torture".

One point I've wondered about is that some of these incidents involve forcing the prisoners to do degrading acts (masturbation, and so on).

How were they forced to do this?

If the coercion was threat of imminent death (like holding a gun to their heads or even threatening to shoot them if they don't do it), it fits the definition of torture.

The U.S. Code, Title 18, Pat 1, Chapter 113C, section 2340 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html), 2.C defines one type of severe mental pain as the prolonged mental pain caused by "the threat of imminent death".

I don't really see any way you can coerce someone to do these degrading acts in this context without it being torture.

This is aside from the mental pain caused by the humiliation itself.



Whatever the definition of these acts - they are totally unacceptable for a country like America that purports to support respect for human values. If Obama gives way to the military and backtracks on his promise to publish said pictures then I suspect that, that will be the defining point of his Presidency.

[boloboffin]

Sodomizing kids while their mothers watch....

Yeah, I think I might see Obama's point.

[Puppycow]

Sodomizing kids while their mothers watch....

Yeah, I think I might see Obama's point.

What exactly are you talking about?

[Eddie Dane]

Sorry. That is crap. "Damage America". Sheesh.

Would you feel that way if you were manning a checkpoint in Kabul?

ETA:
Sorry, shoddy post.
I realise there's difference between inflaming emotions thus increasing danger to military personnel and political damage to the US.

Thought I'd correct myself before someone did it for me.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Also, why is it that people are concerned about increasing danger to our people when discussing releasing these photos, but that's not part of the consideration when they try to justify torture?

Anyway, again, I wasn't trying to start a thread on the topic of releasing the photos. But I guess since Obama changed his tune that's the more important topic. (I thought by now we'd have the pictures to discuss the "abuse" vs. "torture" issue.)

[boloboffin]

What exactly are you talking about?

Something about which I hope to be 100% wrong (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/07/15/hersh/index.html).

[Brainster]

Something about which I hope to be 100% wrong (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/07/15/hersh/index.html).

You mean about which you hope Sy Hersh is 100% wrong. Hersh is known for making wild charges in speeches (especially, for some unknown reason, during election years), but he appears to be a little more careful when it comes to the written word, and as far as I know, he has never printed these accusations.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm talking about these photos (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/may/13/iraq.usa)--which have not been released to the public.
Photographs of dogs snarling at prisoners, of women being forced at gunpoint to expose their breasts, of hooded prisoners being forced to masturbate, and of forced homosexual acts were among those shown to members of Congress yesterday.
("Yesterday" being almost exactly 5 years ago.)

Even Rumsfeld said something to the effect that the pictures we've seen weren't the worst of them, IIRC.

ETA: Yes, my memory was correct (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/08/iraq/main616338.shtml).
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld offered "my deepest apology" Friday to Iraqi prisoners abused by sadistic military personnel and warned that videos and photos yet to come could further inflame worldwide outrage.

"It's going to get a good deal more terrible, I'm afraid," he said glumly in congressional testimony televised throughout the Arab world as well as in the United States.

[casebro]

Not to mention the fact the Geneva convention says displaying photos of prisoners is considered degrading. No Abu Graib style shenanigans needed. It's just not considered fair game to exploit the losers. No neener-neener-neeners allowed either. :)

[JoeTheJuggler]

Not to mention the fact the Geneva convention says displaying photos of prisoners is considered degrading.
Unfortunately that's not the rationale we're being given for not releasing the photos.

I think the photos can be released to the public in a way that wouldn't be considered "displaying" or "degrading" to the prisoners. (The simplest way is to blur or cover anything that could identify an individual--like the faces.)

[Eddie Dane]

Also, why is it that people are concerned about increasing danger to our people when discussing releasing these photos, but that's not part of the consideration when they try to justify torture?


I don't justify torture. IMHO we are now in a phase of damage control.

[foxholeatheist]

Torture and humiliation is useless tactically and produces information with very little real intelligence value.

When you talk of inflaming people against America they're not talking about your local hippies or college students. They're talking about your local jihadist. And when you torture detainees and release them you've created jihadists.

[fishbob]

Torture and humiliation is useless tactically and produces information with very little real intelligence value.

When you talk of inflaming people against America they're not talking about your local hippies or college students. They're talking about your local jihadist. And when you torture detainees and release them you've created jihadists.

There might also be inflammation among some of the GOP stalwarts, who have been defending Cheney. Hannity or OReilly might have to eat some words.

[INRM]

Obama basically told us all what we wanted to hear before he got into office, he once in office did some basic things to placate us all, now he's doing whatever the hell he wants.

He's defended the warantless wiretapping, he's not going to prosecute people who engaged in torture, he's not going to release the photos he said he was going to release, he's starting up the military-commissions again.


INRM

[ponderingturtle]

He also claimed that releasing the photos would have a "chilling effect" on investigation and prosecution of torture. I don't understand that logic in the least.

Well the chilling effect in that it would increase public interest in actualy having such prosecutions. Does anyone think there would have been any trials for abu graib with out the photo's?

ETA: I do understand that the photos will "inflame the enemies of America". I'd like to point out that it's not the release of the photos that would do that, but the commission of the acts shown in the photos. I think the superficial investigation and slap-on-the-wrist punishments that have been meted out will also "inflame the enemies of America". I don't think it's a good idea to decide what's right wrt to these matters based on how the "enemies of America" will react. I think instead, we should abide by our legal obligations.

The thing here is that photo's make it more real and create emotional connections that reports simply do not.

[ponderingturtle]

Also, why is it that people are concerned about increasing danger to our people when discussing releasing these photos, but that's not part of the consideration when they try to justify torture?

Because they know that the problem is transparency not torture here. As long as it remains covered up it is fine.

[ponderingturtle]

I don't justify torture. IMHO we are now in a phase of damage control.

Also known as cover up.

[ponderingturtle]

When you talk of inflaming people against America they're not talking about your local hippies or college students. They're talking about your local jihadist. And when you torture detainees and release them you've created jihadists.

And the argument here is that it is the publishing of photo's of said acts that does the creation not the acts themselves.

[Travis]

Would the release of the photo's help the situation in any way?

I mean we all know that terrible things were done so do we really need more photo-documentation at this time?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Would the release of the photo's help the situation in any way?
Yes. For one thing, it would show a break with the policies of the Bush Administration. This commentator (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/05/18/gerges.photos/index.html) seems to think the net effect in the Muslim world would be good.

I mean we all know that terrible things were done so do we really need more photo-documentation at this time?
I'm not so sure "we" all know. If the general public really was aware of this, I don't think we'd lack the political will to investigate and prosecute these crimes appropriately. As it is, most people on this forum agree the U.S. committed torture, yet the reason not one single person has been charged with that crime is the lack of political will.

Even in the torture homicides, the punishments the convictions and punishments that have been handed down so far have been laughably inadequate.

I think release of the photos would make it impossible for Americans simply to forget the matter and focus on the economy.

[Upchurch]

Would the release of the photo's help the situation in any way?

I mean we all know that terrible things were done so do we really need more photo-documentation at this time?

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke

[Travis]

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke

Yes, because questioning the public release of select few photos of a horrible event is exactly the same as saying that nothing should be done about it at all.



Offtopic....but how sure is anyone that Burke really said that?

[Upchurch]

Yes, because questioning the public release of select few photos of a horrible event is exactly the same as saying that nothing should be done about it at all.
What is being done? What are good men doing?

See Joe's post above.

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, because questioning the public release of select few photos of a horrible event is exactly the same as saying that nothing should be done about it at all.


He has pretty much said that we will do nothing already. This is to keep the public from becoming angry enough to demand action, which is what he does not want.

[Upchurch]

This Modern World (http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2009/05/19/tomo/index.html?source=rss)

[Brainster]

Still more rash Hersh (http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/18-May-2009/US-special-squad-killed-Benazir):

Former prime minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto was assassinated on the orders of the special death squad formed by former US vice-president Dick Cheney, which had already killed the Lebanese Prime Minister Rafique Al Hariri and the army chief of that country.
The squad was headed by General Stanley McChrystal, the newly-appointed commander of US army in Afghanistan. It was disclosed by reputed US journalist Seymour Hersh while talking to an Arab TV in an interview.
Hersh said former US vice-president Cheney was the chief of the Joint Special Operation Command and he clear the way for the US by exterminating opponents through the unit and the CIA. General Stanley was the in-charge of the unit.

Hersh retracts (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\05\19\story_19-5-2009_pg7_4):

The award-winning journalist described as “complete madness” the reports that the squad headed by General Stanley McChrystal – the new commander of US army in Afghanistan – had also killed former Lebanese prime minister Rafique Al Hariri and a Lebanese army chief. “Vice president Cheney does not have a death squad. I have no idea who killed Mr Hariri or Mrs Bhutto,” Hersh said. “I have never said that I did have such information. I most certainly did not say anything remotely to that effect during an interview with an Arab media outlet.”

Vice President Cheney does not have a death squad? Tell it to Sy Hersh back in March (http://www.minnpost.com/ericblackblog/2009/03/11/7310/investigative_reporter_seymour_hersh_describes_exe cutive_assassination_ring):

"Right now, today, there was a story in the New York Times that if you read it carefully mentioned something known as the Joint Special Operations Command -- JSOC it’s called. It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently. They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office. They did not report to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff or to Mr. [Robert] Gates, the secretary of defense. They reported directly to him. ...

"Congress has no oversight of it. It’s an executive assassination ring essentially, and it’s been going on and on and on. Just today in the Times there was a story that its leaders, a three star admiral named [William H.] McRaven, ordered a stop to it because there were so many collateral deaths.

"Under President Bush’s authority, they’ve been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving. That’s been going on, in the name of all of us.

Executive assassination ring, death squad, what's the diff?

[boloboffin]

How can Hersh "retract" something he never said?

[Brainster]

How can Hersh "retract" something he never said?

Something he says he never said. I assume there is video of the interview and it will come out exactly what he said, and that it will end up pretty doggone close to what he said in Minnesota in March. There's probably a leap of logic in there that Hersh will use as his out; that when he referred to an executive assassination ring who slips into countries and kills important people he may have said, "people like Bhutto," thereby implying without actually stating that Cheney's death squad did the assassination.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well the chilling effect in that it would increase public interest in actualy having such prosecutions. Does anyone think there would have been any trials for abu graib with out the photo's?

Oh no! So Obama's using Doublespeak now? Where "chilling effect" means the opposite of what it ordinarily means?!

Again, I understand the argument based on the inflammatory effect the photos might have. (Though I disagree that it's a good reason not to release the photos.)

I simply do not understand the claim that releasing the photos would have a chilling effect on investigations.

It might have a chilling effect on people who want to mistreat prisoners. Or at least on taking pictures. . . .

[ponderingturtle]

Oh no! So Obama's using Doublespeak now? Where "chilling effect" means the opposite of what it ordinarily means?!

No, he is simply lying. He has to pretend he has some decent reason for what he is doing, and not simply covering up past missdeeds so that they will not effect how america is viewed. Given that this is precisely what he is doing he needs to speak around the issue carefully.

[JoeTheJuggler]

No the chilling effect he is worried about is that creating an enviroment where he needed to prosecute those who commited crimes. He thinks this will have a chilling effect how he is viewed on defense.
I must be dense, but I don't understand this.

"Chilling effect" usually means it would be deter or discourage something. It would force people to curb their enthusiasm with regard to some practice. For example, arresting peaceful protesters has a chilling effect on legitimate free speech.

I still don't see what the "chilling effect" that releasing photos would have on the investigation and prosecution of these crimes.


He does not want people mad enough to demand trials.
Exactly! Releasing the photos, as I said earlier, would make it very nearly impossible for us to ignore the issue.

That's what I would call an inflammatory effect or motivating effect (or provocative or arousing effect) wrt the investigations, but not a chilling effect.

[dudalb]

Oh no! So Obama's using Doublespeak now? Where "chilling effect" means the opposite of what it ordinarily means?!

Again, I understand the argument based on the inflammatory effect the photos might have. (Though I disagree that it's a good reason not to release the photos.)

I simply do not understand the claim that releasing the photos would have a chilling effect on investigations.

It might have a chilling effect on people who want to mistreat prisoners. Or at least on taking pictures. . . .


Somehow I think that protecting the American people against Terrorism does not have a high place in your agenda.
Kick the people who did the torture out of their jobs. I don't think a huge public washing of laundry in public would serve anybody's interest except Al Quida.

[Upchurch]

Somehow I think that protecting the American people against Terrorism does not have a high place in your agenda.
I can't speak for Joe, but it doesn't have to be either/or. We can protect the American people against terrorism while still prosecuting those people who performed unethical and illegal acts, even if they thought they were helping.


Kick the people who did the torture out of their jobs.
Yes. Absolutely. Let us be a nation of laws and principles.


I don't think a huge public washing of laundry in public would serve anybody's interest except Al Quida.
Then you have a very low opinion of the United States.

[ponderingturtle]

I must be dense, but I don't understand this.


I rewrote this post to be clear after reviewing the conversation.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Somehow I think that protecting the American people against Terrorism does not have a high place in your agenda.

I agree with what Upchurch said and would add to it that in part you are right. If you want to do a realistic assessment of threat or danger, international terrorism is a relatively low threat to most of us.

Shortly after 9-11, one of the skeptic mags ran an article comparing the loss of life and injuries from that horrible day to the loss of life and number of injuries we experience approximately every 6 weeks due to auto accidents. Many readers were shocked and said that it's wrong to compare someone who dies in a car accident to someone who died in 9-11. I don't understand why. Surely you wouldn't want to dismiss one of these deaths as being somehow less tragic or less important than the other?

I guarantee you if we spent as much money on reducing highway fatalities as we do in the "War on Terror" (heck, even just the Homeland Security budget) we could save a much greater number of lives.

People often have a distorted idea of what presents a risk. As I tell people who are concerned about the saftey of some of my juggling stunts (like juggling a chainsaw), I admit that there is real danger, but that by far (by orders of magnitude) the most dangerous thing I'll do today is to get into a car.

[JoeTheJuggler]

We can protect the American people against terrorism while still prosecuting those people who performed unethical and illegal acts, even if they thought they were helping.

Well said.

And to underscore an important point, I have no doubt that Bush and company did think they were helping. I don't think torture was motivated by sadism, by and large.

That's exactly why it's so important to keep and enforce a law that makes it clear that your good intentions are not an excuse. No emergency, no crisis, no noble end, no situation of any kind can be used to justify torture.

[dudalb]

Your auto accident comparasion just confirms that you have no real interest in protecting the American people, but just want to write off 9/11 as just a bad accident.
You can use similiar reasoning to say the US should not have gone to war Against Japan after Pearl Harbor.

[Upchurch]

Your auto accident comparasion just confirms that you have no real interest in protecting the American people, but just want to write off 9/11 as just a bad accident.
Again, not to speak for Joe, but I didn't get that from what he wrote at all.

You can use similiar reasoning to say the US should not have gone to war Against Japan after Pearl Harbor.
No, you really couldn't. There is a significant difference between Al Qaeda and the Axis powers. The Axis powers represented a real existential threat to the Allies, including the US although not immediately.

There was never a concern that Al Qaeda could actually conquer or destroy the US.

[ponderingturtle]

Your auto accident comparasion just confirms that you have no real interest in protecting the American people, but just want to write off 9/11 as just a bad accident.

So how many auto accident dead are each of the dead in the attacks on september eleventh worth? 10, 20? I would like to know.


You can use similiar reasoning to say the US should not have gone to war Against Japan after Pearl Harbor.

How do you get to this? The idea that useing the fear generated from that attack to push for bad policies is not that same as advocating doing nothing.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Your auto accident comparasion just confirms that you have no real interest in protecting the American people, but just want to write off 9/11 as just a bad accident.
No it doesn't.

Do you think a life lost in a highway fatality is less tragic or less important than a life lost during the 9/11 attacks?

If not, then why don't you advocate taking the 40,000 annual deaths as a serious problem? Your attitude seems to show that you're less interested in "protecting the American people" than it is in some political or foreign policy agenda.

[dudalb]

Just out of curiosity ,what you have done after 9/11?

[Upchurch]

Just out of curiosity ,what you have done after 9/11?
I would have gone after Bin Laden/Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

[ponderingturtle]

I would have gone after Bin Laden/Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

I would invade france. They have weapons of mass destruction and are not giving them up.