Get E-Mail Updates

Pentagon Blocks Release of Detainee Abuse Photos -- Obama Agrees

The release of photos of Americans supposedly treating imprisoned suspected terrorists badly has been blocked by the Pentagon and President Obama. The official reason for this is that there is concern the public release of them will further endanger American troops serving overseas. It is suspected that included in the photos are pictures of Americans holding guns to the heads of detainees handcuffed and with their heads covered. I can only assume that these pictures do exist, or that they are even worse, since there is such worry about their release.

What concerns me most in this situation is that our leaders expect more outrage from our enemies than from us over the inhumane treatment of defenseless persons. Of course, if we saw pictures of Americans being treated like this, or anyone else for that matter as long as it's not an American pointing the gun, we would be outraged. Perhaps the unspoken reason for the blockage of their release may be that if the American public saw them much of our leadership's legitimacy may be shaken, but I find that doubtful considering the lack of any long-lasting outrage over Abu Ghraib. At its best the United States has stood for principles like justice, freedom, dignity, equality, and human rights. At its worst it has used those ideals as a cover for murder, genocide, unjust war and exploitation. More often than not in the "War on Terror" it has seemed we have leaned more toward the latter than the former.

As a Christian and someone who is informed by that conviction to be an engaged and responsible citizen I am deeply saddened by all of the reports of torture and inhumane treatment that have surfaced over the last several years. I believe this has seriously weakened America's moral standing in the world, nearly erased any claim we may have once had about respecting human rights, and caused us to in part become exactly what we claim to be fighting and hoping to remove from the world. It is sinful to take innocent life and it is sinful to torture and demean humans created in the image of God. As Christians, we worship a God who was beaten and mocked when imprisoned and defenseless. It seems this same behavior has now been done to others in our name. It is time for confession and repentance. May no one be tortured in the name of America again.

portrait-jimmy-mccartyJimmy McCarty is a doctoral student at Emory University in the Graduate Division of Religion studying Ethics and Society. He blogs at jimmymccarty.wordpress.com.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: Jedidiah Abdul Muhib Palosaari

12-20-2009 @ 12:43pm

I see no reason to shame those we have mistreated by publishing photos of them naked or being beaten. Especially if our victims are from a shame culture. Punish the violators, to the full extent of the law, yes. Don't make those we have tormented victims twice over.

by: PDBurns

11-17-2009 @ 4:33pm

Question: Was it a Bush Administration decision to release the Abu Ghraib photos, were the photos leaked, or something else. I do not recall.

by: PDBurns

11-17-2009 @ 4:33pm

Question: Was it a Bush Administration decision to release the Abu Ghraib photos, were the photos leaked, or something else. I do not recall.

by: alfrot

11-17-2009 @ 8:23pm

"As Christians, we worship a God who was beaten and mocked when imprisoned and defenseless. It seems this same behavior has now been done to others in our name."

'our name' as Christians doesn't include Chinese, Russian or indeed Afghan Christians. Clearly ending torture by America or anyone else is worthwhile but I fear the conflation of America and Christendom: it tends to suggest the spiritual lines of right and wrong lie close to the political lines of ally and foe.

Although a second reading of the article reveals that you might have meant 'As *American* Christians...' - an elision we non-Americans should always watch out for.

by: FreeToBeYouAndMe

11-21-2009 @ 3:43am

The heinous acts we are engaging in are not pictured on the front pages of (corporate) American media--but they certainly are around the rest of the world. We are shielded from the inhumane treatment of POWs (yes, POWs) which is against the Geneva Conventions. When the pictures of U.S.-slaughtered villages and executions in Vietnam made it home, it was a catalyst to ending that war. Show the pictures. BE disgusted, GET physically ill viewing these horrendous acts by (corporate) Amercan contractors--let it eat into our souls that we actually have a hand in this and conclude that we have no other option but to stop these maddening acts of insanity! (Google "Ex-Interrogators Say Human Connection, Not Torture, Yields Results".) Can we actually imagine the unimaginable? No, we can't. We can't even, for that matter, imagine the pain and suffering of those afflicted by our aggressions overseas without pictures. No American has seen the wedding parties in Afghanistan strewn to pieces by unmanned drones--not even the lieutenant who ordered it to be done. Bring it home. Show the pictures. The world needs to see compassionate Americans respond to these atrocities!! WE'RE HERE!!! We must stop this and all unjust wars that (corporate) America is waging around the world.

by: Jedidiah Abdul Muhib Palosaari

12-20-2009 @ 12:43pm

I see no reason to shame those we have mistreated by publishing photos of them naked or being beaten. Especially if our victims are from a shame culture. Punish the violators, to the full extent of the law, yes. Don't make those we have tormented victims twice over.

by: Chris "Jesdisciple"

11-17-2009 @ 9:43pm

Yeah, I think we subconsciously don't expect citizens of other countries to read here. After all, we don't read blogs about Russian politics. But I agree that it is confusing when you take away the American context.

by: alfrot

11-17-2009 @ 8:23pm

"As Christians, we worship a God who was beaten and mocked when imprisoned and defenseless. It seems this same behavior has now been done to others in our name."

'our name' as Christians doesn't include Chinese, Russian or indeed Afghan Christians. Clearly ending torture by America or anyone else is worthwhile but I fear the conflation of America and Christendom: it tends to suggest the spiritual lines of right and wrong lie close to the political lines of ally and foe.

Although a second reading of the article reveals that you might have meant 'As *American* Christians...' - an elision we non-Americans should always watch out for.

by: Chris "Jesdisciple"

11-17-2009 @ 9:45pm

What concerns me most in this situation is that our leaders expect more outrage from our enemies than from us over the inhumane treatment of defenseless persons.

No, they expect more violence from our enemies than from us - which is a good thing, right? If we decided to impeach Obama because of the news, at least no one would get killed.

by: FreeToBeYouAndMe

11-21-2009 @ 3:43am

The heinous acts we are engaging in are not pictured on the front pages of (corporate) American media--but they certainly are around the rest of the world. We are shielded from the inhumane treatment of POWs (yes, POWs) which is against the Geneva Conventions. When the pictures of U.S.-slaughtered villages and executions in Vietnam made it home, it was a catalyst to ending that war. Show the pictures. BE disgusted, GET physically ill viewing these horrendous acts by (corporate) Amercan contractors--let it eat into our souls that we actually have a hand in this and conclude that we have no other option but to stop these maddening acts of insanity! (Google "Ex-Interrogators Say Human Connection, Not Torture, Yields Results".) Can we actually imagine the unimaginable? No, we can't. We can't even, for that matter, imagine the pain and suffering of those afflicted by our aggressions overseas without pictures. No American has seen the wedding parties in Afghanistan strewn to pieces by unmanned drones--not even the lieutenant who ordered it to be done. Bring it home. Show the pictures. The world needs to see compassionate Americans respond to these atrocities!! WE'RE HERE!!! We must stop this and all unjust wars that (corporate) America is waging around the world.

by: Chris "Jesdisciple"

11-17-2009 @ 9:43pm

Yeah, I think we subconsciously don't expect citizens of other countries to read here. After all, we don't read blogs about Russian politics. But I agree that it is confusing when you take away the American context.

by: Chris "Jesdisciple"

11-17-2009 @ 9:45pm

What concerns me most in this situation is that our leaders expect more outrage from our enemies than from us over the inhumane treatment of defenseless persons.

No, they expect more violence from our enemies than from us - which is a good thing, right? If we decided to impeach Obama because of the news, at least no one would get killed.

by: burningheretic

11-18-2009 @ 5:47pm

Not so certain there. There are 'citizens' now who would like to perform a coup d'etat.
I am reminded of this: 'What does it profit a (nation/people/group) to gain the whole world, but lose its soul?'

by: Jedidiah Abdul Muhib Palosaari

12-20-2009 @ 2:43pm

I see no reason to shame those we have mistreated by publishing photos of them naked or being beaten. Especially if our victims are from a shame culture. Punish the violators, to the full extent of the law, yes. Don't make those we have tormented victims twice over.

by: burningheretic

11-18-2009 @ 5:47pm

Not so certain there. There are 'citizens' now who would like to perform a coup d'etat.
I am reminded of this: 'What does it profit a (nation/people/group) to gain the whole world, but lose its soul?'

by: JenniferEh

11-18-2009 @ 6:33pm

There are several issues here, interlinked. The first thing is the notion of censorship: in the service of what good is the blocking of such information justified? Surely public accountability for violations of Human Rights would be a good thing, here.
However, there is another subtle point to be heard amidst the censorship: What is the effect of making public particular kinds of information? In a day where media-fueled frenzies have altogether the effect of creating fear, confusion, and disinformation amongst the wider public, how can the press and the state be accountable for the circulation of such supposedly "free" information?
Let me address the second point. Assuming that anger and violence directed towards troops were to ensue BECAUSE OF the circulation of information and images is probably false. The reality of the situation is that these incidences of violence did happen; we have evidence that this is so. Photos are merely one aspect of this evidence demonstrating this primarily to those who are unacquainted with this reality.
The public in the occupied nations of Afghanistan and Iraq are likely all too familiar with the clandestine operations of their captors....so while the fear for US troops is understandable from our vantage point, on the ground, there is likely already a palpable skepticism amongst Iraqis and Afghanis which preemptively delegitimizes the purity of the war. I am not for the killing of any person due to the circulation of information--however, it seems to me that the problem in the first place is the very horrific, and unnacountable actions of the US military in places like Abu Ghraib. You can shoot the rooster crowing, but you can't hide the morning sun....

In my skepticism, I believe that the real issue is, how will this messiness delegitimize the "war on terror" and our sense of righteous moral positioning?

by: JenniferEh

11-18-2009 @ 6:33pm

There are several issues here, interlinked. The first thing is the notion of censorship: in the service of what good is the blocking of such information justified? Surely public accountability for violations of Human Rights would be a good thing, here.
However, there is another subtle point to be heard amidst the censorship: What is the effect of making public particular kinds of information? In a day where media-fueled frenzies have altogether the effect of creating fear, confusion, and disinformation amongst the wider public, how can the press and the state be accountable for the circulation of such supposedly "free" information?
Let me address the second point. Assuming that anger and violence directed towards troops were to ensue BECAUSE OF the circulation of information and images is probably false. The reality of the situation is that these incidences of violence did happen; we have evidence that this is so. Photos are merely one aspect of this evidence demonstrating this primarily to those who are unacquainted with this reality.
The public in the occupied nations of Afghanistan and Iraq are likely all too familiar with the clandestine operations of their captors....so while the fear for US troops is understandable from our vantage point, on the ground, there is likely already a palpable skepticism amongst Iraqis and Afghanis which preemptively delegitimizes the purity of the war. I am not for the killing of any person due to the circulation of information--however, it seems to me that the problem in the first place is the very horrific, and unnacountable actions of the US military in places like Abu Ghraib. You can shoot the rooster crowing, but you can't hide the morning sun....

In my skepticism, I believe that the real issue is, how will this messiness delegitimize the "war on terror" and our sense of righteous moral positioning?

by: irish_annie

11-18-2009 @ 9:45pm

true... and what sort of perverse voyeurism makes anyone wish to view these photos anyway...? selah.

by: 1jsm5

11-18-2009 @ 10:48pm

A similar moral dilemma involved the government's suppression for forty years of the original color films made in Hiroshima and Nagasaki shortly after the bombings in the initial days of the occupation. Speculation at the time were that the pictures of the cities and the victims were so horrific that the US citizenry would never have approved further bomb development. See Greg Mitchell: Great Hiroshima Coverup, Huffington Post 08-09-09.

The first casualty of war is the truth.
These pictures (films) which did not benefit from "Wag the Dog" revisionist photoshopping are the truth, which for war advocates must be denied and, if not denied, suppressed.

by: irish_annie

11-18-2009 @ 9:45pm

true... and what sort of perverse voyeurism makes anyone wish to view these photos anyway...? selah.

by: SisterMarie

11-19-2009 @ 1:40am

As long as we do not release these photos those terrorists who oppose us will maintain that the abuses were far worse and widespread than they actually were. The one thing that we cannot cede as a nation is the truth. If we learned nothing during the past 8 years, we should have learned that.

by: 1jsm5

11-18-2009 @ 10:48pm

A similar moral dilemma involved the government's suppression for forty years of the original color films made in Hiroshima and Nagasaki shortly after the bombings in the initial days of the occupation. Speculation at the time were that the pictures of the cities and the victims were so horrific that the US citizenry would never have approved further bomb development. See Greg Mitchell: Great Hiroshima Coverup, Huffington Post 08-09-09.

The first casualty of war is the truth.
These pictures (films) which did not benefit from "Wag the Dog" revisionist photoshopping are the truth, which for war advocates must be denied and, if not denied, suppressed.

by: Chris "Jesdisciple"

11-19-2009 @ 2:18am

I don't know, I think al Qaeda would find a way to recruit youths by showing what bad things America stands for. Now if I were a collectivist, I would say go ahead and release them because America sinned and needs to confess - but our soldiers overseas didn't do anything wrong.

And I don't think this is a case of censorship. They're the government's photos, and the government hopefully knows best what to do because they saw the pictures and we didn't. Maybe the government isn't being transparent enough, but there's no censorship.

So the question is, when should government refuse to be transparent? Surely there are some good reasons.

by: Chris "Jesdisciple"

11-19-2009 @ 2:28am

Have we seen this type of propaganda? Is such an empty accusation more effective than an actual photo? Do we know that the photos aren't as bad as their descriptions?

by: SisterMarie

11-19-2009 @ 1:40am

As long as we do not release these photos those terrorists who oppose us will maintain that the abuses were far worse and widespread than they actually were. The one thing that we cannot cede as a nation is the truth. If we learned nothing during the past 8 years, we should have learned that.

by: Chris "Jesdisciple"

11-19-2009 @ 2:18am

I don't know, I think al Qaeda would find a way to recruit youths by showing what bad things America stands for. Now if I were a collectivist, I would say go ahead and release them because America sinned and needs to confess - but our soldiers overseas didn't do anything wrong.

And I don't think this is a case of censorship. They're the government's photos, and the government hopefully knows best what to do because they saw the pictures and we didn't. Maybe the government isn't being transparent enough, but there's no censorship.

So the question is, when should government refuse to be transparent? Surely there are some good reasons.

by: Chris "Jesdisciple"

11-19-2009 @ 2:28am

Have we seen this type of propaganda? Is such an empty accusation more effective than an actual photo? Do we know that the photos aren't as bad as their descriptions?

by: Jedidiah Abdul Muhib Palosaari

12-20-2009 @ 2:43pm

I see no reason to shame those we have mistreated by publishing photos of them naked or being beaten. Especially if our victims are from a shame culture. Punish the violators, to the full extent of the law, yes. Don't make those we have tormented victims twice over.

by: seattle office cleaning

11-25-2009 @ 9:49am

I will bookmark and continue reading your blog in the future! Thanks alot for the informative post!

Thanks
jenny martin
______________________________________________

by: seattle office cleaning

11-25-2009 @ 9:49am

I will bookmark and continue reading your blog in the future! Thanks alot for the informative post!

Thanks
jenny martin
______________________________________________

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: SisterMarie

11-19-2009 @ 1:40am

As long as we do not release these photos those terrorists who oppose us will maintain that the abuses were far worse and widespread than they actually were. The one thing that we cannot cede as a nation is the truth. If we learned nothing during the past 8 years, we should have learned that.

by: PDBurns

11-17-2009 @ 4:33pm

Question: Was it a Bush Administration decision to release the Abu Ghraib photos, were the photos leaked, or something else. I do not recall.

by: PDBurns

11-17-2009 @ 4:33pm

Question: Was it a Bush Administration decision to release the Abu Ghraib photos, were the photos leaked, or something else. I do not recall.

by: alfrot

11-17-2009 @ 8:23pm

"As Christians, we worship a God who was beaten and mocked when imprisoned and defenseless. It seems this same behavior has now been done to others in our name."

'our name' as Christians doesn't include Chinese, Russian or indeed Afghan Christians. Clearly ending torture by America or anyone else is worthwhile but I fear the conflation of America and Christendom: it tends to suggest the spiritual lines of right and wrong lie close to the political lines of ally and foe.

Although a second reading of the article reveals that you might have meant 'As *American* Christians...' - an elision we non-Americans should always watch out for.

by: alfrot

11-17-2009 @ 8:23pm

"As Christians, we worship a God who was beaten and mocked when imprisoned and defenseless. It seems this same behavior has now been done to others in our name."

'our name' as Christians doesn't include Chinese, Russian or indeed Afghan Christians. Clearly ending torture by America or anyone else is worthwhile but I fear the conflation of America and Christendom: it tends to suggest the spiritual lines of right and wrong lie close to the political lines of ally and foe.

Although a second reading of the article reveals that you might have meant 'As *American* Christians...' - an elision we non-Americans should always watch out for.

by: Chris "Jesdisciple"

11-17-2009 @ 9:43pm

Yeah, I think we subconsciously don't expect citizens of other countries to read here. After all, we don't read blogs about Russian politics. But I agree that it is confusing when you take away the American context.

by: Chris "Jesdisciple"

11-17-2009 @ 9:43pm

Yeah, I think we subconsciously don't expect citizens of other countries to read here. After all, we don't read blogs about Russian politics. But I agree that it is confusing when you take away the American context.

by: Chris "Jesdisciple"

11-17-2009 @ 9:45pm

What concerns me most in this situation is that our leaders expect more outrage from our enemies than from us over the inhumane treatment of defenseless persons.

No, they expect more violence from our enemies than from us - which is a good thing, right? If we decided to impeach Obama because of the news, at least no one would get killed.

by: Chris "Jesdisciple"

11-17-2009 @ 9:45pm

What concerns me most in this situation is that our leaders expect more outrage from our enemies than from us over the inhumane treatment of defenseless persons.

No, they expect more violence from our enemies than from us - which is a good thing, right? If we decided to impeach Obama because of the news, at least no one would get killed.

by: burningheretic

11-18-2009 @ 5:47pm

Not so certain there. There are 'citizens' now who would like to perform a coup d'etat.
I am reminded of this: 'What does it profit a (nation/people/group) to gain the whole world, but lose its soul?'

by: burningheretic

11-18-2009 @ 5:47pm

Not so certain there. There are 'citizens' now who would like to perform a coup d'etat.
I am reminded of this: 'What does it profit a (nation/people/group) to gain the whole world, but lose its soul?'

by: JenniferEh

11-18-2009 @ 6:33pm

There are several issues here, interlinked. The first thing is the notion of censorship: in the service of what good is the blocking of such information justified? Surely public accountability for violations of Human Rights would be a good thing, here.
However, there is another subtle point to be heard amidst the censorship: What is the effect of making public particular kinds of information? In a day where media-fueled frenzies have altogether the effect of creating fear, confusion, and disinformation amongst the wider public, how can the press and the state be accountable for the circulation of such supposedly "free" information?
Let me address the second point. Assuming that anger and violence directed towards troops were to ensue BECAUSE OF the circulation of information and images is probably false. The reality of the situation is that these incidences of violence did happen; we have evidence that this is so. Photos are merely one aspect of this evidence demonstrating this primarily to those who are unacquainted with this reality.
The public in the occupied nations of Afghanistan and Iraq are likely all too familiar with the clandestine operations of their captors....so while the fear for US troops is understandable from our vantage point, on the ground, there is likely already a palpable skepticism amongst Iraqis and Afghanis which preemptively delegitimizes the purity of the war. I am not for the killing of any person due to the circulation of information--however, it seems to me that the problem in the first place is the very horrific, and unnacountable actions of the US military in places like Abu Ghraib. You can shoot the rooster crowing, but you can't hide the morning sun....

In my skepticism, I believe that the real issue is, how will this messiness delegitimize the "war on terror" and our sense of righteous moral positioning?

by: JenniferEh

11-18-2009 @ 6:33pm

There are several issues here, interlinked. The first thing is the notion of censorship: in the service of what good is the blocking of such information justified? Surely public accountability for violations of Human Rights would be a good thing, here.
However, there is another subtle point to be heard amidst the censorship: What is the effect of making public particular kinds of information? In a day where media-fueled frenzies have altogether the effect of creating fear, confusion, and disinformation amongst the wider public, how can the press and the state be accountable for the circulation of such supposedly "free" information?
Let me address the second point. Assuming that anger and violence directed towards troops were to ensue BECAUSE OF the circulation of information and images is probably false. The reality of the situation is that these incidences of violence did happen; we have evidence that this is so. Photos are merely one aspect of this evidence demonstrating this primarily to those who are unacquainted with this reality.
The public in the occupied nations of Afghanistan and Iraq are likely all too familiar with the clandestine operations of their captors....so while the fear for US troops is understandable from our vantage point, on the ground, there is likely already a palpable skepticism amongst Iraqis and Afghanis which preemptively delegitimizes the purity of the war. I am not for the killing of any person due to the circulation of information--however, it seems to me that the problem in the first place is the very horrific, and unnacountable actions of the US military in places like Abu Ghraib. You can shoot the rooster crowing, but you can't hide the morning sun....

In my skepticism, I believe that the real issue is, how will this messiness delegitimize the "war on terror" and our sense of righteous moral positioning?

by: irish_annie

11-18-2009 @ 9:45pm

true... and what sort of perverse voyeurism makes anyone wish to view these photos anyway...? selah.

by: irish_annie

11-18-2009 @ 9:45pm

true... and what sort of perverse voyeurism makes anyone wish to view these photos anyway...? selah.

by: 1jsm5

11-18-2009 @ 10:48pm

A similar moral dilemma involved the government's suppression for forty years of the original color films made in Hiroshima and Nagasaki shortly after the bombings in the initial days of the occupation. Speculation at the time were that the pictures of the cities and the victims were so horrific that the US citizenry would never have approved further bomb development. See Greg Mitchell: Great Hiroshima Coverup, Huffington Post 08-09-09.

The first casualty of war is the truth.
These pictures (films) which did not benefit from "Wag the Dog" revisionist photoshopping are the truth, which for war advocates must be denied and, if not denied, suppressed.

by: 1jsm5

11-18-2009 @ 10:48pm

A similar moral dilemma involved the government's suppression for forty years of the original color films made in Hiroshima and Nagasaki shortly after the bombings in the initial days of the occupation. Speculation at the time were that the pictures of the cities and the victims were so horrific that the US citizenry would never have approved further bomb development. See Greg Mitchell: Great Hiroshima Coverup, Huffington Post 08-09-09.

The first casualty of war is the truth.
These pictures (films) which did not benefit from "Wag the Dog" revisionist photoshopping are the truth, which for war advocates must be denied and, if not denied, suppressed.

by: SisterMarie

11-19-2009 @ 1:40am

As long as we do not release these photos those terrorists who oppose us will maintain that the abuses were far worse and widespread than they actually were. The one thing that we cannot cede as a nation is the truth. If we learned nothing during the past 8 years, we should have learned that.

by: Chris "Jesdisciple"

11-19-2009 @ 2:18am

I don't know, I think al Qaeda would find a way to recruit youths by showing what bad things America stands for. Now if I were a collectivist, I would say go ahead and release them because America sinned and needs to confess - but our soldiers overseas didn't do anything wrong.

And I don't think this is a case of censorship. They're the government's photos, and the government hopefully knows best what to do because they saw the pictures and we didn't. Maybe the government isn't being transparent enough, but there's no censorship.

So the question is, when should government refuse to be transparent? Surely there are some good reasons.

by: Chris "Jesdisciple"

11-19-2009 @ 2:18am

I don't know, I think al Qaeda would find a way to recruit youths by showing what bad things America stands for. Now if I were a collectivist, I would say go ahead and release them because America sinned and needs to confess - but our soldiers overseas didn't do anything wrong.

And I don't think this is a case of censorship. They're the government's photos, and the government hopefully knows best what to do because they saw the pictures and we didn't. Maybe the government isn't being transparent enough, but there's no censorship.

So the question is, when should government refuse to be transparent? Surely there are some good reasons.

by: Chris "Jesdisciple"

11-19-2009 @ 2:28am

Have we seen this type of propaganda? Is such an empty accusation more effective than an actual photo? Do we know that the photos aren't as bad as their descriptions?

by: Chris "Jesdisciple"

11-19-2009 @ 2:28am

Have we seen this type of propaganda? Is such an empty accusation more effective than an actual photo? Do we know that the photos aren't as bad as their descriptions?

by: FreeToBeYouAndMe

11-21-2009 @ 3:43am

The heinous acts we are engaging in are not pictured on the front pages of (corporate) American media--but they certainly are around the rest of the world. We are shielded from the inhumane treatment of POWs (yes, POWs) which is against the Geneva Conventions. When the pictures of U.S.-slaughtered villages and executions in Vietnam made it home, it was a catalyst to ending that war. Show the pictures. BE disgusted, GET physically ill viewing these horrendous acts by (corporate) Amercan contractors--let it eat into our souls that we actually have a hand in this and conclude that we have no other option but to stop these maddening acts of insanity! (Google "Ex-Interrogators Say Human Connection, Not Torture, Yields Results".) Can we actually imagine the unimaginable? No, we can't. We can't even, for that matter, imagine the pain and suffering of those afflicted by our aggressions overseas without pictures. No American has seen the wedding parties in Afghanistan strewn to pieces by unmanned drones--not even the lieutenant who ordered it to be done. Bring it home. Show the pictures. The world needs to see compassionate Americans respond to these atrocities!! WE'RE HERE!!! We must stop this and all unjust wars that (corporate) America is waging around the world.

by: FreeToBeYouAndMe

11-21-2009 @ 3:43am

The heinous acts we are engaging in are not pictured on the front pages of (corporate) American media--but they certainly are around the rest of the world. We are shielded from the inhumane treatment of POWs (yes, POWs) which is against the Geneva Conventions. When the pictures of U.S.-slaughtered villages and executions in Vietnam made it home, it was a catalyst to ending that war. Show the pictures. BE disgusted, GET physically ill viewing these horrendous acts by (corporate) Amercan contractors--let it eat into our souls that we actually have a hand in this and conclude that we have no other option but to stop these maddening acts of insanity! (Google "Ex-Interrogators Say Human Connection, Not Torture, Yields Results".) Can we actually imagine the unimaginable? No, we can't. We can't even, for that matter, imagine the pain and suffering of those afflicted by our aggressions overseas without pictures. No American has seen the wedding parties in Afghanistan strewn to pieces by unmanned drones--not even the lieutenant who ordered it to be done. Bring it home. Show the pictures. The world needs to see compassionate Americans respond to these atrocities!! WE'RE HERE!!! We must stop this and all unjust wars that (corporate) America is waging around the world.

by: seattle office cleaning

11-25-2009 @ 9:49am

I will bookmark and continue reading your blog in the future! Thanks alot for the informative post!

Thanks
jenny martin
______________________________________________

by: seattle office cleaning

11-25-2009 @ 9:49am

I will bookmark and continue reading your blog in the future! Thanks alot for the informative post!

Thanks
jenny martin
______________________________________________

by: Jedidiah Abdul Muhib Palosaari

12-20-2009 @ 12:43pm

I see no reason to shame those we have mistreated by publishing photos of them naked or being beaten. Especially if our victims are from a shame culture. Punish the violators, to the full extent of the law, yes. Don't make those we have tormented victims twice over.

by: Jedidiah Abdul Muhib Palosaari

12-20-2009 @ 12:43pm

I see no reason to shame those we have mistreated by publishing photos of them naked or being beaten. Especially if our victims are from a shame culture. Punish the violators, to the full extent of the law, yes. Don't make those we have tormented victims twice over.

by: Jedidiah Abdul Muhib Palosaari

12-20-2009 @ 2:43pm

I see no reason to shame those we have mistreated by publishing photos of them naked or being beaten. Especially if our victims are from a shame culture. Punish the violators, to the full extent of the law, yes. Don't make those we have tormented victims twice over.

by: Jedidiah Abdul Muhib Palosaari

12-20-2009 @ 2:43pm

I see no reason to shame those we have mistreated by publishing photos of them naked or being beaten. Especially if our victims are from a shame culture. Punish the violators, to the full extent of the law, yes. Don't make those we have tormented victims twice over.