The argument (and I'm not saying I support it, but I do understand it) is that releasing these photographs won't help bring the people involved to trial (the investigators already had access to them), it would just serve to increase violence against soldiers who weren't involved. Chances are that the vast majority of service personel have never been involved in this kind of stuff, and didn't even know it was happening until afterwards -- to put them in further danger because of what these people did seems like a bad idea.
As I said, that's the argument as I understand it.
Well, as you say, it's an understandable point but I'd be a lot more sympathetic to this sort of reasoning if I thought there was any chance in hell that the people responsible ((not just the people who did it, but the people who OK'd it)) would suffer any consequences for it.
Oh, maybe a scapegoat or two will be made to sit in the Naughty Corner, but serious repercussions? Nah.
Actually, I managed to miss an important chunk of words there: if photos like this and the others keep being suppressed, they will be forgotten, and a lot easier to deny. Out of sight, out of mind, all that.
It's rare that something immediately good comes of a situation when you let men with guns in.
But sometimes, it's necessary to use the ones with the fractionally-less evil, corrupt, repressive leadership to kick out the fractionally worse ones. Assuming that havoc can then be un-cried, and the dogs of war re-leashed, it's possible to leave the situation less bad than it was when it started.
Doesn't always work that way, but it is just about possible.
But when can we expect to replace the armed forces with hexapod military robots and nuclear-powered space lasers? After all, nothing quite says 'supreme power' like cutting your enemy's heart out from 36,000 km away.
I feel a bit sorry for him really - think he's starting to find out how hard it is to be progressive in the USA. Tries to close Guantanamo, the Senate won't fund it, puts a stop to torture as part of the interrogation process and the right wing complain; which they were always going to anyways but I don't get why it's okay for a US soldier to do it but if the Taliban are using the same technique it's all OMGDZ. You can't fight evil with more evil, you're just going to end up with a massive ball of evil. And noone wants that.
I understand people's concern for the troops but what's done is done, and the troops who did it should be immediateley suspended and put on trial, even if the pictures are never shown. I guess the worry is that officials who investigated the pictures know that the cases aren't all that isolated and that it's more than just a select few, which WOULD put the majority of troops at risk, rightly or wrongly.
Comments 12
As I said, that's the argument as I understand it.
Reply
Oh, maybe a scapegoat or two will be made to sit in the Naughty Corner, but serious repercussions? Nah.
Reply
Reply
Reply
But sometimes, it's necessary to use the ones with the fractionally-less evil, corrupt, repressive leadership to kick out the fractionally worse ones. Assuming that havoc can then be un-cried, and the dogs of war re-leashed, it's possible to leave the situation less bad than it was when it started.
Doesn't always work that way, but it is just about possible.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I read this a while back. Not sure what the latest news is, but Sen. Leahy was still keen on it a month ago http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4969514.shtml .
Reply
I understand people's concern for the troops but what's done is done, and the troops who did it should be immediateley suspended and put on trial, even if the pictures are never shown. I guess the worry is that officials who investigated the pictures know that the cases aren't all that isolated and that it's more than just a select few, which WOULD put the majority of troops at risk, rightly or wrongly.
Reply
Leave a comment