Disgusting and horrid.

Supreme Court Rules Against ACLU In Case Of Detainee Abuse Photos

The Supreme Court has thrown out an appeals court ruling ordering the disclosure of photographs of detainees being abused by their U.S. captors.

In doing so Monday, the high court cited a recent change in federal law that allows the pictures to be withheld.

The administration appealed the matter to the Supreme Court, but also worked with Congress to give Defense Secretary Robert Gates the power to keep from the public all pictures of foreign detainees being abused.

Gates invoked his new authority in mid-November, saying widespread distribution of the pictures would endanger American soldiers.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who served on the 2nd Circuit until August, did not take part in the court’s consideration of the case, Department of Defense v. ACLU, 09-160.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/30/supreme-court-rules-again_0_n_373842.html

Thanks for the link to the Mother Jones article.

This sounds like a BAD law to me. We so seldom hear about these things from the MSM.

While—even as a conservative Republican—I doubt that I could learn to despise him as I have Bush/Cheney, I want him out of office so that I do not have the opportunity to find out over 8 full years of his lies, hypocrisy, and deceit that result in additional loss of our freedoms and further the loss of life and destruction in wars-for-profit.
__________________________________

Quote:

[ Gates Bars Torture Photos' Release
— By Nick Baumann | Fri November 13, 2009 9:17 PM PST

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has used powers granted to him by a controversial new law to block the court-ordered release of numerous photos of detainee abuse, government lawyers revealed in a court filing [PDF] Friday evening.

Gates’ new authority comes from a law, signed by President Barack Obama last month, that gives the Secretary of Defense the power to rule that photos of detainees are exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act. Gates’ action on Friday was the first use of the new FOIA exemption since it passed Congress last month. The photos in question are the subject of a years-long legal fight by the American Civil Liberties Union, which first filed a FOIA request for records pertaining to detainee treatment, rendition, and death in May of 2005. The case is currently being reviewed by the Supreme Court.” ]
_________________________________

More @ Mother Jones:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/11/gates-bars-torture-photos-release

“Ukraine is opening up part of its old KGB archive, declassifying hundreds of thousands of documents spanning the entire Soviet period.

But the move to expose Soviet-era abuses is dividing Ukrainians, the BBC’s Gabriel Gatehouse reports from Kiev.

Deep in the bowels of Ukraine’s former KGB headquarters there is a deathly silence. Thousands of boxes, piled floor to ceiling, line the walls. Each box is carefully numbered and each one contains hundreds of documents: case notes on enemies of the former Soviet state.

Behind each number, there is a story of personal tragedy.

Volodymyr Viatrovych, the chief archivist, pulled out a brown cardboard folder stuffed full of documents: case number 4076. At the centre of the case is a letter, dated 1940 and addressed to “Comrade Stalin, the Kremlin, Moscow”.

A photo of Ivan Severin shot in the head (right) and the words: Liquidated. 3 April 1947
Ivan Severin was “liquidated” in 1947, his case notes state

“Dear Iosif Vissarionovich,” the letter starts. Nikolai Reva wanted Stalin to know the facts about the great famine of 1932-33, when millions died as a result of the Soviet policy of forced collectivisation.

Like many at the time, Mr Reva believed that Stalin was being kept in the dark, and that if only he knew what was happening, he would surely put a stop to it.

But his letter landed him in the Gulag. He was eventually rehabilitated – 25 years later.

Many met a harsher fate.

Leafing through one of many macabre photo albums, Mr Viatrovych pointed to a picture of Ivan Severin, shot in the head by the Soviet security services. Under the picture, in very neat handwriting, is written: “Liquidated, 3 April 1947″.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8119320.stm

“Standard Operating Proceedure”
This film clearly shows this torture was in no way the work of “a few bad apples”, but was in fact, ordered from the top.

“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’
A previous image of Iraq prison abuse

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.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5395830/Abu-Ghraib-abuse-photos-show-rape.html

If We’re Going to Reveal More Memos …

Former VP Dick Cheney has requested the release of additional memos showing that torture and abuse saved American lives by preventing terrorist attacks. If the Obama administration decides to release these memos, then I suggest they also release statistics from Iraq showing the number of foreign fighters that were recruited because of our policy of torture and abuse. It was tracked. I know because I saw the slides and because I heard captured foreign fighters state this day in and day out. The government can also release the statistics that show that 90% of suicide bombers in Iraq were these same foreign fighters. These foreign fighters killed hundreds, if not thousands, of American soldiers.

After these revelations, Americans can judge whether or not a policy of torture and abuse kept us safe. Unfortunately, we’ll never be able to evaluate the damage that was done to past or future interrogations. As I experienced firsthand, detainees were less likely to cooperate when they viewed us as hypocrites. We can’t establish the trust that is required to convince a detainee to cooperate unless we live up to the principles that we preach.

I had one detainee in Iraq, a previous al-Qaeda fighter, who provided me with all the information he knew willingly without me having to run an interrogation approach. He told me that al-Qaeda had accused him of being a mole and tortured him before we rescued him. He then proceeded to say that the reason he was going to cooperate was because we didn’t torture him and because of that, he knew everything that he’d been told about us by al-Qaeda was wrong.

Before 9/11, the protection of American soldiers from terrorist attacks was a priority for our country. Consider our responses to the Beirut Bombing, Khobar Towers, and the USS Cole. When we talk about keeping Americans safe from terrorist attacks, we need to include all Americans, especially those that serve in uniform.

Matthew Alexander spent fourteen years in the US Air Force and Air Force Reserves. An “investigator turned interrogator” who deployed to Iraq in 2006, he conducted more than 300 interrogations and supervised more than 1,000. Alexander was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for his achievements in leading the team that located Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, who was killed by Coalition Forces. He is the author of How to Break a Terrorist: The US Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq.”

(from Andy Worthington’s site)

Some may say that prosecuting a Vice President for Crimes is un-American. I’m not suggesting Cheney be prosecuted for war crimes. He should be prosecuted for lying to the American People, thus LEADING them into War. Pre-meditated Murder. He knew, absolutely knew, that lives would have been lost or lives would have manned, physically and emotional. He knew that the lives of American Service men and women would never, EVER, be the same again. He should be prosecuted for deceiving the American people, people who lived, loved and would die for their country.

Micky, West Orange, NJ

No one is above the law – except for those who are so far above it they won’t bother with sorting the minutia required to understand it…

President Obama is perfectly within his rights to take whatever argument he wants and appeal the circuit court’s decision to the SCOTUS. I fail to see what is sinister about this method to buy some time before these pictures are released (which his information may indicate is highly desirable). To me, the only worrisome possibility is that the SCOTUS will reverse the lower court and even if that is the case, my first assumption would be that they were given a compelling reason for doing so.

Actually the Second Circuit ruled that the pictures were subject to the FOIA because the government could not prove that a specific individual or individuals faced a risk of harm as a result of the release. It also ruled in an ancillary matter to our discussion that the privacy rights of those depicted could be maintained by redacting certain identifiers in the photographs. The Court did not rule the releasing the photographs would have no impact on the safety of the troops in general just that the FOIA required a showing of specific endangerment to an identifiable person or group of persons. I think this is a significant interpretation of the FOIA and SCOTUS may well involve itself to define the scope of the endangerment exclusion of the statute. Should the government, at some point in the future, be able to identify a specific target of attack resulting from the release, I think the decision will be different.

That isn’t correct. Obama may claim state secrets (and he has done this to prevent evidence of rendition leading to torture from surfacing, for example in the Jeppesen Data Plan case) but the courts have told him on several occassions now, that he may not claim a blank check to conceal evidence on the basis of state secrets. These pictures are a case in point. The court ruled he must release the pictures. One of the best explanations of what happened in this case is outlined by Glen Greenwald. I would check out his site.

“JT clearly backed up his statements with references to actions taken by Obama. To believe he doesn’t mean what he said one has also to believe he picked out facts that back up what he’s saying, but he didn’t really mean to point out these facts either. So he’s making statements he doesn’t mean and backing them up with facts he doesn’t mean either.”

*****************

He’s doing what good advocates do-namely choosing the facts and presenting them in the order and in the manner he chooses for the greatest impact to support his position. Those that do not fit, he discards. That’s not being disingenuous; that’s lawyering. Notice he did not rebut the President’s concerns about troop safety in his Maddow interview, and totally discounted it as a causative factor except only to say there already are pictures out there. That’s ok, but it doesn’t make the issue go away. Maddow herself states that the ACLU says the pictures will “outrage” us. What makes you think it won’t re-outrage those who would do us harm. Notice Professor Turley takes no issue with that statement of the ACLU either. He’s a fine lawyer, but here on this blog tonight we are judging the President’s conduct not advocating, and in my judgment, the Professor, whom I respect and admire and who is exceedingly eloquent and logical, is likewise wrong.

Gyges:

“…JT’s posting on this blog seem to be a fleshed out version of his more public appearances. Now I have no insight into the Prof’s mind, so I’ll just take him at his word that this is what he believes.”
********************

I agree with that statement, but my point was that the tone and subtleties are different in a compressed environment versus a more deliberative one, and even more so when your comments are a decision instead of an advisory opinion.
—

Secretly, JT would prefer being a political commentator
- in his next life…

I’m finding it infinitely satisfying when people echo my thinking. Imitation is indeed the sincerest form of flattery
- even when the credit is bestowed to someone else!

“I am certain that we do! It’s my second administration in a row that I’ve been called a traitor under.”
________________

Well then, you are a very consistent traitor; an admirable quality!

“You are sayng he does not believe what he states or does not state what he believes.”

*************************

I think there is a difference between well-grounded statements of opinion and hyperbole. I think this morphing language is the latter. He certainly doesn’t mean it literally, thus it is already an illustrative example. I just think the illustration is more caricature than portrait.

I am certain that we do! It’s my second administration in a row that I’ve been called a traitor under.

I think that you and I look at issues differently that M72 and PC. I have no problem following Professor Turley’s arguments because he is succinctly consistent within this blawg and during his interviews.

“Does JT really believe that Obama, after 113 days or so on the job, is “morphing into his predecessor”? I think not, but he is concerned.”
__________

Are you paying attention to what you are writing? Do you know better of what “JT” is saying than he does. You are sayng he does not believe what he states or does not state what he believes.

Understood. I just wanted to point out the JT was being consistent rather than toning it up for any particular audience.

“…JT’s posting on this blog seem to be a fleshed out version of his more public appearances. Now I have no insight into the Prof’s mind, so I’ll just take him at his word that this is what he believes.”
********************

I agree with that statement, but my point was that the tone and subtleties are different in a compressed environment versus a more deliberative one, and even more so when your comments are a decision instead of an advisory opinion.

—
Thanks mespo

I think FFLEO has forgotten, or perhaps was never aware, that George W. Bush bolted the door against Colin ‘you break it you own it you fix it’ Powell before a Cabinet meeting once – supposedly for being ‘late’.

And despite having been treated rudely and dishonestly, he remained to serve ‘at the pleasure of the President, especially, once the Iraq effort was underway. He could have made a political statement, but knew that’s not what was needed as there was no turning back.

And thus, ‘The Pottery Barn Rule’ which Michelle Obama has apparently taken to heart…

While you’re absolutely right about the situation in being in a short segment of a news show, what both you and Patty seem to be ignoring is that JT’s posting on this blog seem to be a fleshed out version of his more public appearances. Now I have no insight into the Prof’s mind, so I’ll just take him at his word that this is what he believes.

Patty C is undeniably correct. Segments on “red meat” shows like Olbermann and Maddow (yes and O’Reilly, too) do not lend themselves to nuanced debate and fine distinctions. It’s all bright lines and big statements. Does JT really believe that Obama, after 113 days or so on the job, is “morphing into his predecessor”? I think not, but he is concerned. Join the “Concerned Club,” as we all have. During the 4-5 minutes of “facetime” that you have to think and answer, you need to get the point across to the target audience. In matters of policy you need a lot more than just sound bites; you need considered judgment and sensitivity that what you do has consequences for all involved. It is always easy to vociferously opine when there are no consequences arising from your pronouncement. It’s a tad tougher when folks might die if you’re wrong. I give more credit to the man in the arena than our little Greek chorus in the peanut gallery–and more deference too.

“We who were in the military especially know that military intelligence is a prime oxymoron. Similarly, Supreme Court justice, Texas Justice, Equal law enforcement, ad nauseam.

Look what this intelligence has gotten us so far…re Colin Powell et al.”

******************

While I agree the military is far from perfect, your comment reminds me of that famous line from “Casablanca” when Major Strasser rebukes the “bumbling American Army” of WW1. Capt. Renault quips, ” I was with them in 1918, when they bumbled into Berlin.” Perfect or no, they appear to have accomplished much of what they set out to do, and I am willing to extend them the benefit of the doubt.

You know what, talk to Jill because I do not agree with you and likely never will and I don’t need the aggravation of you snidely dogging my every comment.

Grow up or leave me alone.

“I know why he is doing it and how little time he has to make the point.”
________________

Seriously, Patty, are you suggesting that Professor Turley is rushing his judgment just to post *something/anything* on his blawg?

http://firedoglake.com/2009/05/14/breaking-pelosi-says-%e2%80%9cthe-cia-is-lying%e2%80%9d/

There is no comparison between Dubya and Obama. There never was and there will never be, in my view. They are cut from different cloth.

Obviously, JT does not hate America and neither do I necessarily agree with him on every contention he makes. I know why he is doing it and how little time he has to make the point.

That’s different and you can’t compare those two things either.

We live in similar times now. There is undeniable evidence of executive power grabs and malfeasance by Obama. While those who say the president could not possibly being doing these things, he is doing them. We have to be careful not to fall into that trap as a nation again.

“I dare say, I see you attempting to do what Dick Cheney is by blurring the line BETWEEN the two administration as much as possible.”

Why do YOU hate America, Jill? ; p
______________

Professor Turley wrote and said:

“Now, in the continue *morphing* with the prior Administration,* Barack Obama is considering a continuation of the Bush policy of indefinitely detaining suspects without trial.”
_________________________

Oh my God! Hit the Presses! ‘Fesser Turley hates America!

Binx,
Coming late to this party I find my presence unnecessary given your above summation, which I heartily second. Kudos to Mespo, Rafflaw and Patty C. as well for apt argumentation.

Initially, Obama decided to go beyond the initial FOIA request.
That part WAS at his discretion because he did not HAVE to do it. That’s one.

Where is Obama ‘claiming it was just a few bad apples.’?
That’s two.

Despite what you think, you are not making the arguments that JT is making nor for the same reason, although I believe you think you are.

I object to your wild notion that Obama is ‘in bed’ with the former administration! It is a fabulously ridiculous starting position.

I dare say, I see you attempting to do what Dick Cheney is by blurring the line BETWEEN the two administration as much as possible.

He’s trying to cover his butt.

You actually want people in this country to feel less safe than we really are.

Why do YOU hate America, Jill? ; p

It seems to me that similar discussions had to take place in the proximity of where that decision took place. And while it’s nice that the relationship of the political supporters of President Obama does not require the tattoo and hymn book demanded by the previous administration; and, the criticism of President Obama is intellectually unrestrained; it still seems to me that we can’t possibly arrive at a verdict without all the evidence.

We make a lot of assumptions about information that is not public. At the risk of sounding like a total idiot (if that risk hasn’t been assumed already)I’m thinking that this argument attributes a lot of credit to facts not in evidence. It also removes this specific deed – the withholding from the public of more photographic evidence that may or may not be used in the prosecution of American citizens.

I’m listening to a lot of supposition – about a lot of indecision – and others have this all figured out with a simple connecting the dots to “rules-of-law” and presto – solved. Wow … impressive … but I’m not buying it. I have a difficult time believing that we’re having the same argument that has been going on in the West Wing with the same level of detail or the same consequences for getting it wrong.

That being said – I’m very grateful that we’re getting this information in real-time, and the argument is happening in the open and well …. it seems like good argument if it eventually gets us to operating closer to the likes of the Constitution – and the return of the operating principles that were jettisoned under the cover of Homeland Security during the last Administration.

What I don’t think is necessary or helpful are the comparisons to the Bush Administration (Including JT’s) Personally I believe that serves only to narrow the breadth of the argument and it’s just cutesy name calling – considering that Bush/Cheney
epithets are incendiary.

“Apparently the military brass, who we charge we protecting our children while at war and who have access to the relevant intelligence, believe otherwise”
_______________

We who were in the military especially know that military intelligence is a prime oxymoron. Similarly, Supreme Court justice, Texas Justice, Equal law enforcement, ad nauseam.

Look what this intelligence has gotten us so far…re Colin Powell et al.

I do know this from past experience. There has been a great deal of information that shows what helps recruit the most people to fight against us. It is, among other injustices, the fact that we tortured and continue to not live up to our highest moral values. This has been studied and you can look that up. It is actually something that can be factually assertained and has moved beyond the realm of opinion.
As to the rule of law. You are arguing the unitary executive theory of David Addington. Our president had a court order, where evidence was presented by his DOJ and the ACLU, according to the proceedures of our law, and he was ordered to release the pictures. Our president may not refuse to disclose the pictures on his say so. He may, as I said earlier, appeal this to a court of law. If he appeals and loses he must disclose the pictures. He is not above the law, it is not his discretion. If he appeals and is sucessful, the pictures will not be disclosed, not because he is the president and thus able to at will disclose and not disclose information at will, but because he has a judicial ruling allowing him to prevent disclosure.

And on your contention that the 2nd Circuit has spoken, I suggest that, in matters of national security and the interplay between the branches of government concerning this issue, the binding law is not when the good judges from NYC rule, but when the good Justices from First Street NE deny certiorari. Until then it’s opinion subject to appeal, and likely stayed opinion at that.

“You can’t believe hiding those pictures will make our troops safe. It’s just the opposite.”

*****************

I don’t know that and likely you don’t either. Apparently the military brass, who we charge we protecting our children while at war and who have access to the relevant intelligence, believe otherwise. Are you willing to ignore their counsel and risk the life of someone else’s child in your seemingly obsessive quest for immediate gratification?

and they have definitely spent too much money in Iraq and Afghanistan on both war and rebuilding. Again Why are the American people putting up with this shizzle?

that James Madison guy is brilliant. And we have pretty much been at war since 1918 in one form or another.