Releasing Detainee Photos Would Bring More Harm To Victims: Commentary

nytimes.com:

DESPITE demands by human rights advocates that photos documenting abuse of military detainees be made public, the Senate last month passed legislation to block their release. The legislation is now before the House. President Obama supports these efforts. This is all good news. Classifying the photos would help protect those detainees' basic rights to dignity and privacy.

Read the whole story: nytimes.com

Comments

[jasjohn128]

I agree these photos should not be released, but not only to protect the dignity of the victims or to prevent our enemies from having a bad opinion of us.

What I want to know is, What is presumed to be gained by releasing more photos of detainee abuse? Will releasing more images make it more likely that senior Bush administration figures will face prosecution? If so, how many more must be released to get some Grand Juries seated? Will ten be enough? Will fifty be too many?

Some also are arguing "right to know". But just what is it that they're supposed to have a right to know about that will be satisfied by releasing more images?

It's something else, I think. America's armchair fantasists are feeling deprived because their self-proclaimed "right" to be entertained (from a safe distance) by images of others in peril will be in jeopardy if they can't see more disgusting pictures.

America's news-and-entertainment corporations can't wait to serve 'em up, though, and I think this is where the battle over release going to be joined. It'll come down to ad dollars vs. dignity.

[zakon]

The only justice that these victims will likely receive is the world seeing their abuse. The policy makers responsible will never be prosecuted per President Obama's instructions. The Op-Ed's assertion that disclosure will add further damage to the victims is nonsensical. Furthermore, the Op-Ed writer is likely highly biased -- he's an ex-soldier. Let a victim of our abuse have a voice on the pages of the NY Times to confirm the ex-soldier's claims.

[research]

We protect their dignity by blurring out their faces.

almost half of Americans think torture is justified, We must show the true horror of what they are promoting.

[zakon]

Doublespeak: The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.

Americans want to hide the truth to protect the abused.

Read Orwell's 1984 or Animal Farm.

[zakon]

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them....To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth

[jmpurser]

So, now we're going to ignore our own laws and the President's promises in order to protect the dignity of people we've TORTURED????

Our national participation in the Bush War Crimes continues unabated.

[philoffal]

The only people this legislation is protecting are the politicians who cooked up and condoned these crimes

[alexa07]

The New York Times has become increasingly irrelevant in its international coverage, esp. anything related to the Middle East. The NYT readership was failed in the run up to the Iraq war; its current coverage of issues such as the release of these photos which document torture by Americans of Iraqi detainees; its all time mis-coverage of all things related to Palestine. All the news that's fit to print by someone else's ideological filter.

[OliverTwist]

All this might make sense if there were no appologists and trivializers of the actions.

The fact is that American and UK media outlets played video or showed photos provided by the US military displaying the dead bodies of Saddam's sons. (They were so proud!) They also played video provided by the US military of Saddam with his head being pushed around by a US soldier who was busy poking around in Saddam's mouth with tools. (They were so proud!) George Bush has regularly showed off his trophy of Saddam's pistol. (He is so proud!) They showed other pictures of other people making it quite clear that they were abused or about to be abused. (We are the masters of the universe!)

But they only showed what they wanted to show to get effect that they wanted to get.

Let's show it all.

Many Americans need to see it all. They need to be disgusted and to throw up and to need to look away to even start thinking along the lines of considering that maybe what they have been doing and apologizing for and planning to do again has been completely depraved and evil.

Let's show it all.

[FHTB]

This is sheer nonsense.

[SmolderingRuin]

That's a convenient argument with an easy solution. Blur the faces, problem solved.

[Bookkillrr]

Let me guess, the Republicans will demand we release the photos.

[gakabani]

More harm, how can it be if they have no recourse to even seek justice or a fair trial?

[dmbraddy]

It is painfully obvious how to garner the universally acknowledged benefits of releasing the photos without compromising the dignity and rights of detainees. Simply blur the faces in the images. That this has not already been done suggests that the argument given for not releasing the photos is a canard, a ruse intended to obfuscate the real reasons.

[sandiegowoman]

Very simple answer, blur the faces.

[cliffhammond]

What harm? They all have hoods over their heads!

[sviolette]

This is just more smoke and mirrors.