I'm curious what the legal justification is for requiring these videos to be publicly released. (Is public release even what was ruled here? The article implies it, but doesn't actually state it)
This article seems strange to me. What was the point of the second through fifth paragraphs? They don't relate to the topic of the article.
The wording of the article seems to imply these are images of recent events, though it never comes out and gives a time period -- anyone know from what time period these pictures are supposed to be?
And you notice how the article states that "It is not known exactly what the 144 photographs and videos depict", but that doesn't stop them from telling us what they depict? Are we supposed to become outraged without knowing?
This paragraph irritates me. Is the ACLU really suggesting that wrongs should be committed in order to bring to light other wrongs?
If these are indeed images of illegal activities, who will be doing the abuse? The same small set of soldiers? Soldiers under the command of a small set of officers? Contractors?
I don't think we'll find out -- it seems that people have already decided that these images have proven that abuse is the typical behavior of the American soldier, rather than investigate other possibilities. Guilty until proven innocent. *sigh*
Seymour Hersch, the person who originally broke out what happened at Abu Ghraib, says that there are pictures of women being raped and videos of young boys being sodomized. Naturally, if you are the White House, what do you think the public reaction will be if they see these tapes or pictures? Would you want them to see it?
We will have to wait to see what pictures or videos they release or if they will even be released. The White House won't give this one up, so even if they release some things, they won't be "shocking".
Ah, thanks. I didn't know who Seymour Hersch was.
If I was the white house, I certainly would not want these images public: only harm could come from it. Of course, if I was the white house, I would ensure that appropriate action was taken in response to the photos too.
But, nobody seems to care if appropriate action is being taken: they just want to have fuel for their smear campaign.
Publishing more pictures will inevitably lead to more violence on the streets of Iraq and elsewhere resulting in the deaths of both Iraqis and US soldiers who had absolutely nothing to do with the abuses. Hopefully a compromise will be reached such as the establishment of an international independent enquiry to investigate all of the abuse cases and to identify all of the guilty parties, at all levels of seniority, followed by action in the federal courts in return for keeping this inflammatory material out of the public domain.
On a similar note the two British soldiers jailed in a fanfair of publicity for abusing prisoners have recently quietly had their sentences reduced with no reason given. This does not help build confidence in western justice among middle eastern citizens.
I know international inquiries are in vogue these days, but what would be the justification for one? Wouldn't there need to be evidence that the US is systematically not taking appropriate action?
Per the old adage It is not enough that justice be done but justice must be seen to be done.
If the abuse does goes up the chain of command would you trust these same people to set up / conduct the inquiry? History (internationally not just USA) would suggest you should not.
Plus with nothing to hide it seems like a fair compromise. An independant judgement ratifying the pentagons findings and thus exonerating the US administration would be tremendous PR for the USA. It would certainly help with the oft stated aim of winning hearts and minds.
Of course the USA has something to hide, and I'd imagine there's a lot in the area of interest. But to clarify, there are things worth hiding other than wrongdoing.
What do you mean by "things worth hiding other than wrongdoing"?
Separate names with a comma.