Do you want a president who orders what pictures you can look at?

[TheMachineWins]

That's the question, not whether you want to look at the pictures or not. Some people do, some don't but does America want a president who censors what we can look at?

[Mari333]

1. no. nt

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftstreet]

5. What's wrong with that?

:shrug:

[TheMachineWins]

7. What if there was no such thing as a hypothetical question?

"Newbie" is so "oldie".

[ZombieHorde]

10. Why wouldn't they be allowed? If there is a problem then click 'alert'. nt

[mikelgb]

11. Are you series Mr./Ms. "I have the constitution as my avatar"?

[timtom]

13. Now THERE'S an appropriate reply

if I ever did see one...

[derby378]

20. Unfortunately for you, the newbie is right

All of us were newbies at one point or another - we're all travelling down the same road together. Don't be hatin'.

[NNN0LHI]

26. Now aquart you got here about the same time as I did and there was no rule about that back then

I think we were better for it too.

Don

[dysfunctional press]

31. why do people post idiotic questions that have nothing to do with the topic?

[ck4829]

3. No.

[meegbear]

4. Why no. No I don't.

[leftstreet]

6. No

[Pirate Smile]

8. I think you forgot that there is a court involved. The Justice dept. will argue

that they not be released and the court will decide.

[goclark]

16. Bingo!

[TheMachineWins]

28. I think you forgot that the president ordered the court to not release them

That's what the news stories say.

[Spazito]

36. The President CANNOT order the court to do anything...

As usual, the media distorted the facts. The true fact is this: The Obama administration decided to appeal the decision, by the court, to order the photos released. It astounds me the basic facts around this still seem to either be ignored, deliberately or otherwise, or even the basic research is not done before taking the media at it's "word". Simply amazing.

[EFerrari]

47. He can't do that. And it's a little creepy that the corporate media

doesn't seem to know that.

[orleans]

60. turley was on randi's and said obama was in violation of a court order n/t

[EFerrari]

64. Not yet -- the release date was to be May 30, wasn't it?

I think so. That means he has time to go back to court before then. At least, I believe that's the case.

[Pirate Smile]

66. Gibbs said they would be requesting a stay.

[EFerrari]

67. Right. So what order is Obama violatng? I guess it would help

if I'd read the orders and knew what I was talking about. lol :)

[orleans]

71. i thought the release date was may 22. you're right--why would turley

say he was in violation of a court order if the release date hasn't come up yet?
on edit: i googled and the release date is may 28.

[Pirate Smile]

79. He does that kind of thing frequently which just annoys me and makes me question his proclamations.

Obama is going to have the Justice Dept. argue against releasing them (he is going to add a new argument which the government had not previously used) but once all avenues are exhausted and they are ordered to release the photos, he'll release them. There isn't a reason to add to the drama with misinformation.

[Pirate Smile]

65. Did Turley really say that? That would be shocking because it is so wrong.

They are appealing the previous order and the appeals aren't exhausted yet and the deadline isn't here yet. If Turley said that then he's really gone over the edge.

[orleans]

72. i really thought that was what he said. n/t

[Pirate Smile]

62. Those stories are wrong. I hate hysteria that distorts the facts. They are appealing the court

decision and are going to try a different argument than what was previously used by the Bush Admin. Justice Dept.

[Luminous Animal]

77. The Second Circuit has already ruled affirmatively

on their release.

It looks like Obama is prepared to appeal to the Bush "electing" Supremes. Hahahahahaha!!!! We are so fucked as a nation.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Sure. Then the torture apologists can say that "he has more information" than the common folk.

[Warpy]

12. I get his point

Do you want a president who is willing to sacrifice other people's children so you can look at pictures whose content you already know?

While the photos might spur more of a movement to convict the last administration of the war crimes they were undoubtedly guilty of, they would also put the troops still stuck in their wars in greater danger.

I want them released after our troops out of those wars.

[rateyes]

14. Do you think Bush should have kept the Abu Ghraib photos secret?

[John Q. Citizen]

18. That's a good question. I hope you get an answer because now I'm wondering the same thing also.

[Warpy]

29. They probably do

Those photos undoubtedly contributed to their party's defeat.

[OhioChick]

44. Good question. n/t

[Echo In Light]

45. Mum's the word on any responses to that, eh? Start a thread re that and watch it sink like a stone

[grasswire]

15. there's a remedy for the dilemma

An aggressive prosecution of our war criminals and investigation of those who ordered torture would go a long way toward defusing the anger of the world toward our actions.

[TheMachineWins]

17. What other photos are OK to censor, to protect whom?

Our president will decide for us, what we can choose to look at or not. Will it be OK to censor a corporate crime because it would destroy GM or some other bailout recipient? Will political corruption photos be banned because it would ruin a corrupt politician's career? Where's the line, what photos get banned and what photos don't and should that be any presidents decision?

[leftstreet]

19. Maybe he'll take pity on us and censor those Miss CA photos

I don't know which frightens me more - her fake boobs or her bluewhite teeth.

:scared:

[EFerrari]

35. False premise. There is no reason to believe these pictures

could put the troops in greater danger than they already are. Gawd, I hate it when the TROOPS are used to justify a POLITICAL decision.

[FiveGoodMen]

42. "I want them released after our troops out of those wars"

Then none of us will live long enough to see them, and the US will be involved in new wars before they come out.

Everyone needs to see these pictures so that we don't start the next war quite so quickly.

[Mari333]

48. Obama is putting the troops in harms way just by keeping these occupations going

he can bring them all home now and tell the oil companies in Iraq and the Oil companies who want the pipeline in Afghanistan to be secure to just fuck off.
bring the troops home and they will be safe.

http://www.alternet.org/audits/139983/pipeline-istan%3A_everything_you_need_to_know_about_oil%2C_gas%2C_russia%2C_china%2C_iran%2C_afghanistan_and_obama/

[Luminous Animal]

78. So I suppose you protested against

the Abu Ghraib photos and the release of the torture memos?

And if you don't think that our troops are in danger from the massacre of 130 civilians by U.S. troops in Afghanistan last week, then I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. Protesters in Afghanistan already call the U.S. "the world's biggest terrorist".

[Warpy]

80. Don't get personal, Binky

I said I understood his viewpoint. I didn't say I agreed with it.

[Oregone]

21. Of course we do. He won the nomination against non-censor candidates

So of course that is what we want.

(extrapolating from a ridiculous health care argument I saw yesterday)

[sandnsea]

22. Sunlight is the best disinfectant

We need to see enough to know what happeed, but if the worst will cause more harm than good, then it's not necessary to see every single picture.

[konnichi wa]

23. We just got rid of one who wouldn't let us see them at Dover.

:shrug:

[Strong Atheist]

24. Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[Political Tiger]

25. I want a president who thinks things out and doesn't act just to placate the base

like George W Bush did, and thankfully, we've got a president like that.

If releasing these photos puts our troops in harms way then I think somehow we'll all manage without them.

If releasing these photos gives terrorists a new recruiting tool then somehow I think we can live without seeing them right now.

The lust some have to see these photos is rather disturbing. We already know there was abuse. We already know what it looks like.

There seems to be some far left-wing rubbernecking going on here. People see an accident on the side of the road and everyone slows down to get a good look, as if nobody knows what an accident looks like. That appears to be what's going on here. Well, we already know what abuse looks like so the only reason to see these photos is to satisfy some almost compulsive curiosity.

[leftstreet]

27. Oh please

People aren't upset because they can't "see" the photos.


"far left-wing rubbernecking "

FFS where do you get your talking points?

:eyes:

[DS1]

30. +1

[TheMachineWins]

32. "far left-wing rubbernecking", that's a new one

What are the origins of that? Has there been a history of it that you can explain?

[Political Tiger]

39. I think my comment, when taken in context, is self explanatory. n/t

[TheMachineWins]

43. I simply don't get it

What is "far left wing rubbernecking"? Seriously, is there some group of people who demand to see everything ever photographed because they are "far left wing"?

[Political Tiger]

52. Who cares?

You are missing the point of my post by obsessing over four words out of the total post. It's called distraction and avoidance. I know how that game is played.

If you wish to ignore the substance of my post by concentrating on some inconsequential term I used in the post, have at it.

[Echo In Light]

38. ...psst...guess what? Our govt ARE the "terrorists," k?

And this maneuver isn't to "protect troops," cause these are people who don't give a fuck about them or the scores of innocents they're sent to KILL in the name of corporate power and profits.

No, this move is called damage control re war crimes.

[EFerrari]

40. Yeah, I'm tired of watching Democrats placate Bush's base, too!

Those photographs will help build support for the prosecutions we need but nice try at pathologizing people who disagree with you.

[FiveGoodMen]

51. Speaking as a member of the "far-left" ... goodbye.

[Political Tiger]

53. Bye! n/t

[Marr]

63. It's about building the political will to deal with our own government's criminal use of torture.

These are war crimes, and failing to deal with the issue will do real, long term damage to our system, and I would say our society.

[dgibby]

69. Do you think that when we released pictures of the Holocaust and Hiroshima

we were just satisfying "some almost compulsive curiosity" or do you think maybe it's because it's important for us to take a hard look at what so called "civilized" societies are capable of? Maybe, just maybe, if the MSM and our government stops sanitizing our news and hiding the outcome of our actions, we, as a people, would stand up and scream




ENOUGH!


NO MORE!


NOT IN OUR NAMES!

[konnichi wa]

73. We don't necessarily want to do everything we should be -allowed- to do.

:-)

[frylock]

75. you're aware that there are people that don't believe what happened amounts to torture?

you know this right? you're aware of the talking points that what happened at abu ghraib was only so much frat hazing? have you heard this? jesus fucking christ! this isn't about satisfying some morbid curiosity. it's about opening people's fucking eyes. if you can't handle it, then maybe you should post some pics of michelle's dress or some shit.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.

[dysfunctional press]

34. nope. and it's just one more of the reasons the current one won't be getting another vote from me.

[NNN0LHI]

50. Why do you think McCain/Palin would have released them?

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rcrush]

68. Doncha know? You are only allowed to vote in one of the two approved parties.

You did not get permission from General Electric to vote Green Party sorry.

[dysfunctional press]

74. what kind of thought process brought you to that conclusion...?

it doesn't appear to be any coherent one that i can determine, based on what i've posted...

perhaps you could point out where i said anything even remotely close to that? :shrug:

[mmonk]

37. We just had such a president. So the answer is no.

[Parker CA]

41. Obama is not "ordering" anything. He is appealing the ruling with a deadline of early June. In all

likelihood, the photos will be ordered by a judge to be released at which point Obama will not be able to stop them, just as was the case with the previous pictures the ACLU were successful in having released.

[mmonk]

46. That is our hope, but not guarantee.

[Parker CA]

49. Yes, so until then, the OP's insinuation that Obama is "ordering" something is false. The same

things were said about the last batch of photos that ended up being successfully released. An appeal to the release simply is not remotely the same as an "order" to keep the pictures repressed.

[mmonk]

54. Point taken. But if they win an appeal, then it is the same.

[Parker CA]

56. I agree, but I'm using the past batch of photos as an indication of how successful

the previous attempts at appeal were. Until the decision is made by a judge, we are all speculating.

[TheMachineWins]

55. Again, just read the news, there's no need to call me a liar

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_pentagon_abuse_photos

[Parker CA]

59. Please, show me exactly where I called you a "liar." I don't use that word very often. Thanks. n/t

[orleans]

58. we already had one of those

some major fuckhead who censored what we could look at, where we could exercise our "free" but quarantined speech, etc. fuck that.

[MellowDem]

61. As long as he orders me to look at the PRON! nt

[bigwillq]

70. No, not at all.

But in regards to the torture photos, Obama may not have the final say.

[chrisa]

76. Okay, what we're doing endangers US troops.

Why the hell are we doing it then? Does the US really hate the facts that much, and want to attempt to paint some rosey picture about this war? Some principles of Democracy we're representing.

And how can a President demand that pictures not be released in the first place?