|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
 Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 9:28 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
Thanks. Good to see Greenwald's keeping Obama's feet to the coals.
I slightly disgaree with this part...
| Quote: |
Moreover, isn't it rather obvious that Obama's decision to hide this evidence -- certain to be a prominent news story in the Muslim world, and justifiably so -- will itself inflame anti-American sentiment? It's not exactly a compelling advertisement for the virtues of transparency, honesty and open government. What do you think the impact is when we announce to the world: "What we did is so heinous that we're going to suppress the evidence?" Some Americans might be grateful to Obama for hiding evidence of what we did to detainees, but that is unlikely to be the reaction of people around the world.
|
I do think that the visceral experience of actually seeing a picture of extreme torture(assuming that's what is contained in the photos) would have a greater impact on inflaming anti-Americanism than would going through the intellectual process of thinking: "Hmm, Obama won't allow the pictures to be released, so we have to conclude that there's some pretty damning stuff there".
Remember when Bush supposedly made a suggestion(joking or otherwise) to Tony Blair that they bomb Al Jazeera's headquarters(which were located on friendly territory). Blair invoked the Official Secrets Act to have the transcripts classified, and we never found out exactly what Bush had said.
I'd wager that, had those transcripts been released, Bush would have had another "Bring 'Em On", multiplied to the power of ten, added to his resume, and possibly destined to haunt him for the duration of his public life. As it is, though, with the transcripts suppressed, I suspect very few people even remember that this incident took place. |
I can't read the link, it takes me to http://www.flypmedia.com/
But I agree with you and Gopher. The Abu Ghraib pictures inflamed the muslim world and events in Iraq. Just hearing there might be 'things going on' is not the same as seeing the vivid evidence. If it's something ongoing, fine, because then it may bring an end to it. But if its an episode that's passed, showing the world the damning evidence will do more harm than good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
But I agree with you and Gopher. The Abu Ghraib pictures inflamed the muslim world and events in Iraq. Just hearing there might be 'things going on' is not the same as seeing the vivid evidence. If it's something ongoing, fine, because then it may bring an end to it. But if its an episode that's passed, showing the world the damning evidence will do more harm than good. |
I don't agree.
How can we judge whether these photos should be released without seeing them?
Maybe this is why, as an American, I want these photos released (not on prime-time TV, perhaps). I don't trust any branch or any person with the power to withhold photos of possible criminal activity.
Gopher's gonna be upset with me, but I'm invoking Watergate. Nixon's two advisers broke into the Watergate hotel to spy on Democratic Pary information. A criminal trial ensued under the Department of Justice, lead by the Attorney General. Nixon tried to fire the Attorney General because he didn't want evidence released. The Supreme Court said Nixon could not interfere with a criminal trial.
Here's why I bring it up: I think these photos would provide persuasive grounds for a torture inquiry (don't know for sure, though, b/c I haven't seen them). How is it that Obama can both make the decision not to pursue and inquiry and also stymie the release of important information relating to that subject? Its true that a criminal trial is not going on, and its also true that its not Obama implicated in the trial. But it seems to me that Obama's powers could be affected by any criminal trial, and as a sitting President, he is an interested party in any inquiry re: America's acts of torture.
No, that's too much power within one person. Maybe I, a member of the public, shouldn't see the photos, but someone outside of the Executive Branch should, and I mean really justices in the Judicial Branch.
There are reasonable arguments for not releasing the photos, but I just am not persuaded. The Muslim world is not as stupid and childish as people seem to assume, they can distinguish between those who pursue justice and those who have committed injustice, even if they come from the same foreign country. Rather, I think not releasing these photos damages our credibility, and thus Obama must think the content of the phots are very, very bad if he's not doing so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Here's why I bring it up: I think these photos would provide persuasive grounds for a torture inquiry (don't know for sure, though, b/c I haven't seen them). |
That's a very fair point. But, I suppose that I have become so cynical, it didn't really occur to me that a prosecution of those responsible would be at all likely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I doubt they are all that bad. I will bring up the Chilean case again.
We have known all that we know today about the Chilean case through the Church Committees staff reports -- from 1975. But every time a new memoir, a new document surfaces, self-appointed "critics" seize it, mount their soap boxes, and denounce "this shameful atrocity," etc., etc., etc.
This kind of sensationalism is entirely predictable; it it gets old. They say "all we want is to confront the Truth so that we can face it, deal with it, and then move on..." But that is not how they act, Kuros. They tend to rant on and on and on and on and on about it. Why feed the publication--crazed, ratings-conscious howler-monkeys? And more to the point: why ascribe them such noble purposes in the first place?
These people are very much like Thucydides's "clever speech-makers." Very little substance to them. They just enjoy cleverly undoing things that other people construct: in this case, public confidence in our democracy.
| Kuros wrote: |
| How can we judge whether these photos should be released without seeing them? |
Then we agree -- except where I extend B. Obama the benefit of the doubt. And your Watergate analogy is not bad, just not entirely on point. I think this is presently a Pentagon and not a Department of Justice matter. If the Secretary of Defense is consulting with the President re: releasing these photos and they decide not to, for reasons not entirely clear to us at the moment, that is one thing. If the Atty-General demands them as evidence but the President refuses, even pressures the Atty-General, that is another. And I do not think that has occurred at all in this case.
Further, we live in a representative, democratic republic, and not an actual peoples' republic, Kuros. If you want to be in all decisions, if you want to supervise and call the shots at this level of detail, why not run for high office? That does not really go out to you inasmuch as it goes out to almost everyone in journalism today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 2:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| I doubt that you are really scratching your head inasmuch as snapping your fingers at a missed opportunity... |
To what, smirkingly foment anti-Americanism? You are totally misreading me.
Anyway, the question of whether they should be released has been decided in the affirmative by both the district court and by the Court of Appeals; I assume the judges viewed the photos in their chambers. The case is at most two steps from being in the Supreme Court.[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
Thanks. Good to see Greenwald's keeping Obama's feet to the coals.
I slightly disgaree with this part...
| Quote: |
Moreover, isn't it rather obvious that Obama's decision to hide this evidence -- certain to be a prominent news story in the Muslim world, and justifiably so -- will itself inflame anti-American sentiment? It's not exactly a compelling advertisement for the virtues of transparency, honesty and open government. What do you think the impact is when we announce to the world: "What we did is so heinous that we're going to suppress the evidence?" Some Americans might be grateful to Obama for hiding evidence of what we did to detainees, but that is unlikely to be the reaction of people around the world.
|
I do think that the visceral experience of actually seeing a picture of extreme torture(assuming that's what is contained in the photos) would have a greater impact on inflaming anti-Americanism than would going through the intellectual process of thinking: "Hmm, Obama won't allow the pictures to be released, so we have to conclude that there's some pretty damning stuff there".
Remember when Bush supposedly made a suggestion(joking or otherwise) to Tony Blair that they bomb Al Jazeera's headquarters(which were located on friendly territory). Blair invoked the Official Secrets Act to have the transcripts classified, and we never found out exactly what Bush had said.
I'd wager that, had those transcripts been released, Bush would have had another "Bring 'Em On", multiplied to the power of ten, added to his resume, and possibly destined to haunt him for the duration of his public life. As it is, though, with the transcripts suppressed, I suspect very few people even remember that this incident took place. |
Of course Greenwald misses one thing.
Notice that the mideast street didn't get too mad about this:
| Quote: |
| As usual in the Arab world, everyone knew what was happening and no one said a thing. The British and American pilots flying the pointless southern "no-fly" zone � allegedly to protect Iraq's minorities � could clearly see the receding waters of the Marsh. The Arab regimes remained silent. Neither Mubarak nor Arafat nor Assad nor Fahd uttered the mildest word of criticism, any more than they did when the Kurds were gassed. |
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0519-02.htm
From that Bush supporter Robert Fisk.
The real cause of terror is that mideast regimes and elites teach hate and incite violence as a deliberate military tactic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Joo:
If your point is that the arab street will not get outraged by the new photos, then that would seem to be an argument in favor of publication. Is that the point you were trying to make. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 3:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
Joo:
If your point is that the arab street will not get outraged by the new photos, then that would seem to be an argument in favor of publication. Is that the point you were trying to make. |
No the point is that the street has been more or less brainwashed by mideast regimes and elites . If the brainwashing and incitment wasn't going on things would be far different.
Greenwald ought to show the whole picture , not just part of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
