http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33252697/ns/us_news-security

AP updated 1:04 p.m. ET Oct. 10, 2009

Pentagon to keep new pictures of foreign detainees abused by their U.S. 
captors from the public, a move intended to end a legal fight over the 
photographs' release that has reached the Supreme Court.
Federal courts have so far rejected the government's arguments against the 
release of 21 color photographs showing prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq 
being abused by Americans.

The Obama administration believes giving the imminent grant of authority 
over the release of such pictures to the defense secretary would 
short-circuit a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

(more)

"TWP"  wrote ...

> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33252697/ns/us_news-security
>
> AP updated 1:04 p.m. ET Oct. 10, 2009
>
> Pentagon to keep new pictures of foreign detainees abused by their U.S. 
> captors from the public, a move intended to end a legal fight over the 
> photographs' release that has reached the Supreme Court.
> Federal courts have so far rejected the government's arguments against the 
> release of 21 color photographs showing prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq 
> being abused by Americans.
>
> The Obama administration believes giving the imminent grant of authority 
> over the release of such pictures to the defense secretary would 
> short-circuit a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.
>
> (more)

While we know the reasoned arguments for not disclosing the photographs ( 
and the issue can be argued both ways ), this looks suspiciously like Obama, 
not just sweeping the issue under the carpet, but using the power of 
Congress to put the issue above the law, in that it deliberately creates a 
barrier the Supreme Court would not have if given freedom to act otherwise.

Reminds me of New Labour bringing in a whole Act to oust Brian Haw from 
Parliament Square, only for it to be amusingly ruled not apply to him; 8 
years on, still there.

Burrying the evidence won't make the issue go away, in fact it may make it 
worse than any short term outrage and disgust over what the photos show. 
This will continue to be a thorn in Obama's side; we know the crimes were 
done, he cannot deny that, but he isn't prepared to accept the consequences 
of showing the evidence; that's "Change you can believe in".

In message <6LFGm.24$Ym4.8@text.news.virginmedia.com>, The Happy Hippy
 writes
>
>"TWP"  wrote ...
>
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33252697/ns/us_news-security
>>
>> AP updated 1:04 p.m. ET Oct. 10, 2009
>>
>> Pentagon to keep new pictures of foreign detainees abused by their U.S.
>> captors from the public, a move intended to end a legal fight over the
>> photographs' release that has reached the Supreme Court.
>> Federal courts have so far rejected the government's arguments against the
>> release of 21 color photographs showing prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq
>> being abused by Americans.
>>
>> The Obama administration believes giving the imminent grant of authority
>> over the release of such pictures to the defense secretary would
>> short-circuit a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.
>>
>> (more)
>
>While we know the reasoned arguments for not disclosing the photographs (
>and the issue can be argued both ways ), this looks suspiciously like Obama,
>not just sweeping the issue under the carpet, but using the power of
>Congress to put the issue above the law, in that it deliberately creates a
>barrier the Supreme Court would not have if given freedom to act otherwise.
>
>Reminds me of New Labour bringing in a whole Act to oust Brian Haw from
>Parliament Square, only for it to be amusingly ruled not apply to him; 8
>years on, still there.
>
>Burrying the evidence won't make the issue go away, in fact it may make it
>worse than any short term outrage and disgust over what the photos show.
>This will continue to be a thorn in Obama's side; we know the crimes were
>done, he cannot deny that, but he isn't prepared to accept the consequences
>of showing the evidence; that's "Change you can believe in".


The release of the pictures will not have any more effect on the US
troops than not showing them.... however making public proof of US
violations of International Law and Human Rights will place the US in a
difficult position politically and diplomatically.

It might make travel to some parts of the world difficult for senior US
officials.



-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:6LFGm.24$Ym4.8@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> "TWP"  wrote ...
>
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33252697/ns/us_news-security
>>
>> AP updated 1:04 p.m. ET Oct. 10, 2009
>>
>> Pentagon to keep new pictures of foreign detainees abused by their U.S. 
>> captors from the public, a move intended to end a legal fight over the 
>> photographs' release that has reached the Supreme Court.
>> Federal courts have so far rejected the government's arguments against 
>> the release of 21 color photographs showing prisoners in Afghanistan and 
>> Iraq being abused by Americans.
>>
>> The Obama administration believes giving the imminent grant of authority 
>> over the release of such pictures to the defense secretary would 
>> short-circuit a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.
>>
>> (more)
>
> While we know the reasoned arguments for not disclosing the photographs 
> ( and the issue can be argued both ways ), this looks suspiciously like 
> Obama, not just sweeping the issue under the carpet, but using the power 
> of Congress to put the issue above the law, in that it deliberately 
> creates a barrier the Supreme Court would not have if given freedom to act 
> otherwise.
>
> Reminds me of New Labour bringing in a whole Act to oust Brian Haw from 
> Parliament Square, only for it to be amusingly ruled not apply to him; 8 
> years on, still there.
>
> Burrying the evidence won't make the issue go away, in fact it may make it 
> worse than any short term outrage and disgust over what the photos show. 
> This will continue to be a thorn in Obama's side; we know the crimes were 
> done, he cannot deny that, but he isn't prepared to accept the 
> consequences of showing the evidence; that's "Change you can believe in".
>

I didn't know this had happened until I saw the White House press guy 
refusing to be drawn on the subject of this new barrier during a press 
briefing.

With Obama's guys it always seems about controlling the story that gets out. 
I'm sure others have done it too, but it's conspicuous with the present US 
government.  They seem determined that events are not going to be allowed to 
overwhelm them.  It won't work forever.

Maybe US forces - in fact forces in general - would be in less danger if 
they didn't actually abuse people?   There's a thought.  Maybe what's at 
fault here is supervision and training, not photographs.  All photographs 
should be able to do is prove nothing happened.



TWP

"Chris H"  wrote in message 
news:DVIWTDQcCz6KFADC@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <6LFGm.24$Ym4.8@text.news.virginmedia.com>, The Happy Hippy
>  writes
>>
>>"TWP"  wrote ...
>>
>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33252697/ns/us_news-security
>>>
>>> AP updated 1:04 p.m. ET Oct. 10, 2009
>>>
>>> Pentagon to keep new pictures of foreign detainees abused by their U.S.
>>> captors from the public, a move intended to end a legal fight over the
>>> photographs' release that has reached the Supreme Court.
>>> Federal courts have so far rejected the government's arguments against 
>>> the
>>> release of 21 color photographs showing prisoners in Afghanistan and 
>>> Iraq
>>> being abused by Americans.
>>>
>>> The Obama administration believes giving the imminent grant of authority
>>> over the release of such pictures to the defense secretary would
>>> short-circuit a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.
>>>
>>> (more)
>>
>>While we know the reasoned arguments for not disclosing the photographs (
>>and the issue can be argued both ways ), this looks suspiciously like 
>>Obama,
>>not just sweeping the issue under the carpet, but using the power of
>>Congress to put the issue above the law, in that it deliberately creates a
>>barrier the Supreme Court would not have if given freedom to act 
>>otherwise.
>>
>>Reminds me of New Labour bringing in a whole Act to oust Brian Haw from
>>Parliament Square, only for it to be amusingly ruled not apply to him; 8
>>years on, still there.
>>
>>Burrying the evidence won't make the issue go away, in fact it may make it
>>worse than any short term outrage and disgust over what the photos show.
>>This will continue to be a thorn in Obama's side; we know the crimes were
>>done, he cannot deny that, but he isn't prepared to accept the 
>>consequences
>>of showing the evidence; that's "Change you can believe in".
>
>
> The release of the pictures will not have any more effect on the US
> troops than not showing them.... however making public proof of US
> violations of International Law and Human Rights will place the US in a
> difficult position politically and diplomatically.
>
> It might make travel to some parts of the world difficult for senior US
> officials.
>
>

Well, it probably will have some effect.  What's not known is how bad and 
how long.

Of course "new abuse photographs" aren't forced to be limited to incidents 
of abuse that we currently know about.  New incidents of abuse are going to 
be different to new pictures of old incidents.


TWP

"TWP"  wrote ...

> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
> news:6LFGm.24$Ym4.8@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>
>> "TWP"  wrote ...
>>
>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33252697/ns/us_news-security
>>>
>>> AP updated 1:04 p.m. ET Oct. 10, 2009
>>>
>>> Pentagon to keep new pictures of foreign detainees abused by their U.S. 
>>> captors from the public, a move intended to end a legal fight over the 
>>> photographs' release that has reached the Supreme Court.
>>> Federal courts have so far rejected the government's arguments against 
>>> the release of 21 color photographs showing prisoners in Afghanistan and 
>>> Iraq being abused by Americans.
>>>
>>> The Obama administration believes giving the imminent grant of authority 
>>> over the release of such pictures to the defense secretary would 
>>> short-circuit a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.
>>>
>>> (more)
>>
>> While we know the reasoned arguments for not disclosing the photographs 
>> ( and the issue can be argued both ways ), this looks suspiciously like 
>> Obama, not just sweeping the issue under the carpet, but using the power 
>> of Congress to put the issue above the law, in that it deliberately 
>> creates a barrier the Supreme Court would not have if given freedom to 
>> act otherwise.
>>
>> Reminds me of New Labour bringing in a whole Act to oust Brian Haw from 
>> Parliament Square, only for it to be amusingly ruled not apply to him; 8 
>> years on, still there.
>>
>> Burrying the evidence won't make the issue go away, in fact it may make 
>> it worse than any short term outrage and disgust over what the photos 
>> show. This will continue to be a thorn in Obama's side; we know the 
>> crimes were done, he cannot deny that, but he isn't prepared to accept 
>> the consequences of showing the evidence; that's "Change you can believe 
>> in".
>>
>
> I didn't know this had happened until I saw the White House press guy 
> refusing to be drawn on the subject of this new barrier during a press 
> briefing.
>
> With Obama's guys it always seems about controlling the story that gets 
> out. I'm sure others have done it too, but it's conspicuous with the 
> present US government.  They seem determined that events are not going to 
> be allowed to overwhelm them.  It won't work forever.

I don't think its particularly an Obama government thing; in fact he was in 
favour of releasing the photo's until the rightwing and the military started 
to gang up on him and were making it obvious he would be blamed and held 
responsible for any military casualties which arose after publishing. They'd 
have nailed every death on him for their political gain and to damage ihim.

It's a shame he doesn't have the balls to say the truth - the military 
brought the consequences down on themselves, whether right or wrong, not his 
fault - but as 'the buck stops here', and he's expected to protect that 
military ( no matter how wrong it has been ), I can understand he's in a 
difficult position. Especially when the knives are out and some people are 
just looking for any and all opportunities to bring the Administration 
crashing down.

It comes down to what's the right thing to do. I personally think he's 
making the wrong call but I don't have to carry the can. It's an albatross 
round his kneck either way.


> Maybe US forces - in fact forces in general - would be in less danger if 
> they didn't actually abuse people?   There's a thought.  Maybe what's at 
> fault here is supervision and training, not photographs.  All photographs 
> should be able to do is prove nothing happened.

And much, and probably most, of the blame goes back to the Bush 
Administration who wanted to play 'the rules have changed', 'the gloves are 
off' game. Unfortunately Obama's insistence of putting the past behind 
America means he gave Bush & Co, who instructed on what was acceptable, a 
'get out of jail free' card while having to shoulder the consequences of 
their past act. He voluntarily gave up his ability to be able to point to 
where blame really lies. Though how voluntarily is anyone's guess.

"TWP"  wrote ...

> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33252697/ns/us_news-security
:
> Pentagon to keep new pictures of foreign detainees abused by their U.S. 
> captors from the public, a move intended to end a legal fight over the 
> photographs' release that has reached the Supreme Court.

Having gained the power through Congress, Defense Secretary Gates has now 
signed the order to keep the photos secret. The ACLU case is expected to be 
sent back down the chain where the new law will almost certainly be followed 
by the courts.

Defeat for the ACLU after all the rulings in their favour, a victory for 
sweeping things under the carpet, and a fine example that if the law's not 
on your side; change it. Any number of despotic dictators could have told 
Obama's Administration that.