History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has issued a public message to the Chinese government as we near the twentieth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre (emphasis added):
"A China that has made enormous progress economically, and that is emerging to take its rightful place in global leadership, should examine openly the darker events of its past and provide a public accounting of those killed, detained or missing, both to learn and to heal."
This same week, with only three"no" votes, the United States Senate passed the Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009. That measure, inserted into an appropriations bill from the House, would"block release of...photographs that depict the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody."
If they're quick on their feet, the Chinese foreign ministry will just print up a copy of the Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act and send it to the State Department, folded inside a copy of Clinton's message.
Secretaries of defense have a pretty good idea what will happen in the future, except in cases involving insurgencies, weapons of mass destruction, and terrorist attacks on the Pentagon preceded by substantial intelligence. Other than that, spot on -- pick any SecDef, he could make a solid living doing tarot cards on the Venice Boardwalk.
You were born to live on your knees before the altar of state power -- you've got "servile" written all over you. Nobody can read the future, except, well, people in positions of authority can, because they're not like the untermenschen. A shame you'll never have the opportunity to be a slave.
Also, you can't read or think. Just to repeat a theme.
William Hopwood -
6/9/2009
"But the secretary of defense may know for a fact precisely which photographs will cause violence against American troops if released."
Maybe not precisely but he has a pretty good idea-- more so than the self-styled cognoscenti of the world whose absence of the information to which the SecDef is privileged leads them to indulge in an excess of sanctimonious irrationalities some of which we have seen on this thread.
"Hopwood, you dimwit....".etc
Mr. Bray, you really should seek help.
Chris Bray -
6/9/2009
"Unless you are clairvoyant, neither do you. Your vision of the future is only speculation."
But the secretary of defense may know for a fact precisely which photographs will cause violence against American troops if released.
Hopwood, you dimwit, you just gave away the whole game. Nobody can possibly know the future, and, also, the secretary of defense should have unchecked power to hide government records based upon his determination of what will happen in the future.
The tile on my kitchen counter thinks more clearly than you do.
Jonathan Dresner -
6/9/2009
You may understand combat, Mr. Hopwood, but that's all.
William Hopwood -
6/9/2009
"That's the crux of it Mr. Hopwood. You assume that there are only enemies to be defeated or neutrals to be subdued before they can be radicalized. There's no place for principles or justice or honor: only vicious might.
Forgive me, Professor, but that's romantic nonsense. As if the war would go away if we would only be a little nicer to those who want to kill us. Yes, I certainly would like to see our enemies defeated, wouldn't you? Meanwhile, it is a sad reality that wars are not fought by following the Marquis of Queensberry rules.
"You haven't a clue how most wars end or what kind of war we're fighting...."
Well, having served through the combined seven years of two of them, I am curious as to why you feel qualified to be the judge of what I know about how wars end or what kind of war we're fighting.
"Nor do you understand what kind of country we would become if we continued -- as we seem to have during the previous administrations -- to follow your path."
Unless you are clairvoyant, neither do you. Your vision of the future is only speculation.
"...In the course of our invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, the US has killed more innocent bystanders than the 9/11 plot killed, or could have killed had all their plans gone right..."
Whoever first said, "war is hell" was certainly right. But once engaged it cannot be measured in terms of right and wrong by comparable body counts as if on an accounting balance sheet. And how do you really know we killed more *innocent bystanders* in the numbers you say we did? Cite please.
"What do we tell to the families we have supposedly avenged if we can't say "we acted more justly than those who killed your loved one. What do we say to our citizen-victims when the next generation of terrorists have the names of those we killed sewn on their sleeves?"
You make a very good argument that wars should never exist. But human nature being what it is, I'm afraid that is wishful thinking. We lost more Americans in 9/11 than we did at Pearl Harbor. It is not my view that we should have turned the other cheek or, in view of the continued threat, that we should do so now.
Chris Bray -
6/9/2009
"Why would you think they needed a reason for another 9/11 if they had the chance?"
In Hopwoodland, human actions occur without cause or motivation. Jonathan Dresner suggests, correctly, that you don't know how most wars end, or what kind of war we're fighting. I would extend the argument and say you don't know how most wars begin, or why, or that there are different kinds of wars. It's not possible to know any less without drawing your nourishment through roots and leaves, but you keep on babbling garbage in public. I'm embarrassed for you.
I am not a Democrat, and if you knew how to read, I wouldn't have to explain that to you.
Jonathan Dresner -
6/9/2009
would you think they needed a reason for another 9/11 if they had the chance.?
That's the crux of it Mr. Hopwood. You assume that there are only enemies to be defeated or neutrals to be subdued before they can be radicalized. There's no place for principles or justice or honor: only vicious might.
You haven't a clue how most wars end, or what kind of war we're fighting. Nor do you understand what kind of country we would become if we continued -- as we seem to have during the previous administrations -- to follow your path.
"Tell that to the families of the victims."
Can you hear yourself? In the course of our invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, the US has killed more innocent bystanders than the 9/11 plot killed, or could have killed had all their plans gone right. What do we tell to the families we have supposedly avenged if we can't say "we acted more justly than those who killed your loved one." What do we say to our citizen-victims when the next generation of terrorists have the names of those we killed sewn on their sleeves?
William Hopwood -
6/9/2009
"Pathetic dimwit."
The "Braying" continues. Must be a Democrat.
"You're arguing that:
1.) We're the Middle East to prevent another 9/11, and,"
Not my words nor claim. Your psychobabble is showing again.. But since you bring it up, why would you say we were in the Middle East?
2.) "If the people of the Middle East see accurate depictions of what we're doing there, it will cause another 9/11."
Same answer as to #1 above plus this: Why
would you think they needed a reason for another 9/11 if they had the chance.?
"Even for a tiny sad useless mind like yours, I would think some slim pale light would become to shine through at some point."
At first your nonsense was amusing. Then your double-talk, CYA contradictions, and your habit of being loose with the truth was getting tiresome. But now you're just a full-fledged bore.
Chris Bray -
6/9/2009
Pathetic dimwit. You're arguing that:
1.) We're the Middle East to prevent another 9/11, and,
2.) If the people of the Middle East see accurate depictions of what we're doing there, it will cause another 9/11.
Even for a tiny sad useless mind like yours, I would think some slim pale light would become to shine through at some point.
William Hopwood -
6/8/2009
"What does more damage to the nation: an honest accounting which upholds our stated principles or secrecy which allows the true enemies of the republic to slander us unopposed?"
Slander is the least our enemies have in mind for us. What does more damage to our nation is the self flagellation on the part of government officials and pseudo-intellectuals who should know better. That accompanied by a lack of responsibility, some might consider as bordering on subversion, in the declassification and release of sensitive documents which give to our enemies the blue print of weakness--a nation more interested in its international image than in the security of its citizens.
"So far, the latter seems to have done us a great deal more harm than the former (when we've attempted it)."
More harm? How? And with whom that really matters in this war against the jihadists?
"You seem to have no problem whatsoever suggesting the more corrupt and destructive course."
I consider it neither corrupt nor destructive
to pursue of course designed to prevent another 9/11. Apparently you consider that of little importance. Tell that to the families of the victims.
Chris Bray -
6/8/2009
"I take your remark as a complement."
Close enough.
William Hopwood -
6/8/2009
"Hopwood, your position is that I want to give aid and comfort to the enemy because I favor the right of American citizens to see accurate, truthful depictions -- unretouched photographs -- of the real actions of American military personnel. Why don't you try to think that one through, for a change?"
OK. I just thought what you say through (only took a few seconds) and here's what I think: That you really don't care a hoot about what the American public sees. That pure hatred of your own country is what turns you on.
"You are, hands down, the most brutally stupid human being I've ever encountered."
One of your problems (as demonstrated by
the above sentence) is that you have a compulsion to judge other people by your own standards. So, considering the source, I take your remark as a complement.
Chris Bray -
6/8/2009
Hopwood,
"Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism - free government is founded in jealousy...It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power."
Now you just have to figure out what America-hater said this awful stuff, and you can send him some nasty comments about not trusting the secretary of defense with unchecked power.
Chris Bray -
6/8/2009
Hopwood, your position is that I want to give aid and comfort to the enemy because I favor the right of American citizens to see accurate, truthful depictions -- unretouched photographs -- of the real actions of American military personnel. Why don't you try to think that one through, for a change?
You are, hands down, the most brutally stupid human being I've ever encountered.
Jonathan Dresner -
6/8/2009
What does more damage to the nation: an honest accounting which upholds our stated principles or secrecy which allows the true enemies of the republic to slander us unopposed?
So far, the latter seems to have done us a great deal more harm than the former (when we've attempted it). You seem to have no problem whatsoever suggesting the more corrupt and destructive course.
William Hopwood -
6/8/2009
"And I challenge you to show me the language in the bill that says the SecDef's decision would be subject to judicial review."
The Bill doesn't need any such language to be
subject to judicial review by a party or parties with the legal standing to initiate one.
"It would be possible to challenge the law itself in court..."
Hallelujah!! What do you think I've been telling you all along? Alas-he's beginning to wake up.
"...but if the courts upheld it, that would be the end --the material buried under the law would not be subject to review."
Indeed. Did you finally remember something you must have learned in High School?
"If the law required the SecDef to articulate and support a clear argument as to why the photographs would endanger troops -- it doesn't -- and would allow a litigant to ask a judge to review the photographs and the reason for burying them, it would be a different discussion."
I'm really curious as to the frame of mind that would lead you to believe that a judge would be better qualified to pass judgment on whether or not a photograph should be blocked for reasons of the safety of U.S. personnel than would the Secretary of Defense in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs?
"As it stands, if this bill becomes law, the SecDef could choose to hide detainee photos because someone in them was wearing blue pants...
And no one could stop him or challenge his decision...."
You remind me of a statement attributed to George Orwell which I slightly paraphrase: "There are some ideas so nutty that only one who thinks himself an intellectual can believe them."
"It's a license to avoid political embarrassment,"
Rather, the opposite course, and one which you seem well-dedicated to, is to publicly embarrass this country at the expense of the safety and well-being of our fellow citizens who may be in harm's way. Certainly one to give aid and comfort to the enemy, which any citizen should be ashamed of. Why aren't you?
Chris Bray -
6/8/2009
And, my GOD, this idiotic argumet in your last paragraph...
"Just because a review under FOIA is ruled out by the ACT doesn't mean that someone with the motivation and standing to file for a constitutional review is ruled out."
...I deal with in the VERY POST TO WHICH YOU WERE REPLYING.
YOU. CANNOT. READ.
Chris Bray -
6/8/2009
You're talking about two different subjects, and conflating my argument about what should happen with my description of the bill. Once again, you can't read or reason.
William Hopwood -
6/8/2009
"A judge, as with FOIA. I've said this repeatedly, and you're once again proving that you can't read or reason."
No you haven't. What you have said repeatedly in one form or another is, and I quote your latest gaffe::
"....vested solely in a single individual, and not subject to review, right?"
Not only do you have a problem getting it straight what others say but even what you say yourself. Let me try to simplify it for you again.
Just because a review under FOIA is ruled out by the ACT doesn't mean that someone with the motivation and standing to file for a constitutional review is ruled out. That fact shoots your entire argument in the foot.
Chris Bray -
6/8/2009
And I challenge you to show me the language in the bill that says the SecDef's decision would be subject to judicial review. It would be possible to challenge the law itself in court, but if the courts upheld it, that would be the end -- the material buried under the law would not be subject to review.
If the law required the SecDef to articulate and support a clear argument as to why the photographs would endanger troops -- it doesn't -- and would allow a litigant to ask a judge to review the photographs and the reason for burying them, it would be a different discussion.
As it stands, if this bill becomes law, the SecDef could choose to hide detainee photos because someone in them was wearing blue pants. I feel that these images of someone wearing blue pants, if released to the public, would endanger our troops. And no one could stop him or challenge his decision. It's a license to avoid political embarrassment, as anyone but a servile old fool could see.
Chris Bray -
6/8/2009
A judge, as with FOIA. I've said this repeatedly, and you're once again proving that you can't read or reason.
William Hopwood -
6/7/2009
"Because no one would ever abuse a power if it was loosely defined, vested solely in a single individual, and not subject to review, right?"
Given that you suffer from the illusion that the Federal Court system has ceased to function, again I ask: by whom would you have your mythical review performed??? Why do you continually duck this question?
Chris Bray -
6/7/2009
"Note that the quotes specifically refer to
blocking ONLY those photos which would
endanger our personnel. Once again
you've made a disingenuous statement."
If Congress gave Chris Bray the unchecked power to suppress any communication that endangered our personnel, and they left that power undefined and not subject to review, what would stop me from declaring that William Hopwood's blog comments endanger our troops and must be suppressed?
It's a shame Clinton didn't have access to this kind of power: "I find that the release of this blue dress would endanger our troops."
Because no one would ever abuse a power if it was loosely defined, vested solely in a single individual, and not subject to review, right?
I can't figure out if you're playing at being willfully obtuse, or if you're really this stupid.
William Hopwood -
6/7/2009
"...it had not occurred to me to be impressed by the fact that the bill is not intended to hide those records that the government does not intend to hide.,,,"
I didn't think so. Why else would you have raised such a dumb issue as "exemptions" in connection with this ACT when the answer is within the ACT itself?
"The point is that no photographic records of post-9/11 detainees are exempt from the unchecked unilateral power of a single officer in the executive branch...."
Well, So what? That particular officer has already by chosen by the president and confirmed by Congress for, among other things, the heavy responsibilities entailed in supervising the conduct of the war. I'm curious as to whom you might suggest be the one or ones to "check" on and have he power to overrule his decisions under the Act?
"In any case, you should call Lindsey Graham's office and tell them their boss is a liar -- he says the purpose of the bill is to keep post-9/11 detainee photos from being released..."
There you go. Shading the truth again. That's why one is well-advised to always check your links to confirm that they say what you say they say. Here's what Graham (and also Lieberman) were actually quoted as saying:
“This vote is an important statement of support for the protection of our troops who are on the front lines defending our country at a time of war,” said Lieberman. “This amendment provides the President with the ability to block the publication of the photos that would endanger the safety of our men and women in uniform.” (To which Graham added:) “Our military commanders have, to a person, stated that releasing these photographs will increase violence against out troops and civilians serving overseas,” said Graham. I agree. Nothing will be gained by their release in terms of new information about detainee abuse. Americans will be killed because of their release and this amendment is designed to stop that from happening. I applaud the President’s decision to fight the release of these photographs. Our legislation will strengthen the Obama Administration’s legal standing in court and that is why the Senate has unanimously passed this important piece of legislation.”
Note that the quotes specifically refer to
blocking ONLY those photos which would
endanger our personnel. Once again
you've made a disingenuous statement.
"The bill does not create a right to appeal each decision through the courts, or anywhere else, as FOIA does. An appeal regarding the law itself is not the same thing; once settled, the SecDef has absolute power that cannot be contested..."
I disagree and judging from his remark quoted above, so does Sen.Graham. I would like to see a cite for your position. Just because the right to appeal the ACT under FOIA is precluded doesn't mean that a party does not have another remedy provided that party meets legal standing requirements.*
*STANDING: The legal right of a person or group to challenge in a judicial forum the conduct of another, especially with respect to governmental conduct. In the federal system, litigants must satisfy constitutional standing requirements in order to create a legitimate case or controversy within the meaning of Article III of the federal Constitution." [Law Dictionary--3rd Edition Barrons Educational Series, Inc.].
"When you labor at being stupid, which is often, you really succeed. And I adore your little running pout about vulgarity. It's so delightfully quaint, like a garage sale with a box of old 78 RPM records on the lawn, and would you like a nice peppermint? Note to psychological researchers: Really good job with the spambot."
Real scholarly, Mr. Bray, You are destined to go far in your chosen profession.
Chris Bray -
6/6/2009
So the exemption is for "those photos and material related thereto which had NOT been certified by SecDef." Congratulations -- it had not occurred to me to be impressed by the fact that the bill is not intended to hide those records that the government does not intend to hide. You've opened my eyes.
The point is that no photographic records of post-9/11 detainees are exempt from the unchecked unilateral power of a single officer in the executive branch. The fact that this single officer may choose, if he wishes, not to vanish some photos down a black hole -- well, hooray.
In any case, you should call Lindsey Graham's office and tell them their boss is a liar -- he says the purpose of the bill is to keep post-9/11 detainee photos from being released. What's the world coming to, when the sponsors of legislation go around just saying what the laws are for?
"As for the right of appeal which seems to worry you so much, appeal to whom? There is always the right of appeal through the court system..."
The bill does not create a right to appeal each decision through the courts, or anywhere else, as FOIA does. An appeal regarding the law itself is not the same thing; once settled, the SecDef has absolute power that cannot be contested. The power to contest the decisions of executive officers in the courts is a fundamental part of our system of government. It thrills to me to be able to say this: Why do you hate America? Why does our constitutional system of checks and balances fill you with such loathing?
"Don't tell me. Let me guess. The ACLU?"
When you labor at being stupid, which is often, you really succeed.
And I adore your little running pout about vulgarity. It's so delightfully quaint, like a garage sale with a box of old 78 RPM records on the lawn, and would you like a nice peppermint?
Note to psychological researchers: Really good job with the spambot.
William Hopwood -
6/6/2009
"... You said that I hadn't referenced the exemptions created in the law.,,"
Which you had not.
"I asked you to identify those exemptions.. "
Which I did, only to be addressed in a typically far-fetched manner with the claim that I didn't know what the word "exemption" meant. That
shoe was on your own foot.
"... and you responded, bizarrely, with a recapitulation of the law."
Of course, because the law clearly spelled out
what the exemptions were, namely those
photos and material related thereto which
had NOT been certified by SecDef. What
is it about that which was so difficult for
you to grasp?
"But the matter is settled, since you then said in a later message that you believe checks and balances are inappropriate and unwarranted during wartime, and that officers of the executive branch should have wartime powers that cannot be checked or appealed.."
What I said, in effect, was that certain war powers exist under the Constitution and there are constitutional precedents which have not been overturned to date giving the Executive Branch such powers. And I think that is as it should be. As for the right of appeal which seems to worry you so much, appeal to whom? There is always the right of appeal through the court system by parties who have "standing" and the SC is the final arbiter. That should be well known, even to an alleged historian. And if you wouldn't have it that way what other "authority" in your mind should be the one to whom an appeal should be directed? Dont tell me. Let me guess. The ACLU?
"I go back to my old suspicion that "William Hopwood" is a spambot designed by psychological researchers to see how much babbling nonsense people can tolerate in a discussion without having an aneurysm."
I wonder if it take an advanced degree to come up with something as profound as that? And you got all the way through it without indulging in your penchant for vulgarity. Congratulations.
Chris Bray -
6/6/2009
I started off by saying that the Senate voted for a bill that was intended to allow for the suppression of photographs depicting the treatment of American military detainees after 9/11. You said that I hadn't referenced the exemptions created in the law. I asked you to identify those exemptions -- the records exempted from the SecDef's unrestrained and unilateral power under the bill to withhold an entire class of records from the citizens he serves -- and you responded, bizarrely, with a recapitulation of the law.
But the matter is settled, since you then said in a later message that you believe checks and balances are inappropriate and unwarranted during wartime, and that officers of the executive branch should have wartime powers that cannot be checked or appealed.
I said, quoting the bill's sponsor, the bill is intended to do X.
Then you said, that's a lie, the bill is not intended to do X.
I asked you to show me evidence that the bill was not intended to do X.
Then you said, completing a bizarre rhetorical 180, that X is warranted and appropriate, so the bill is proper.
You support the unrestricted executive power I claimed the bill created, acknowledging that the bill creates that unrestricted executive power after saying that I had falsely claimed the bill created unrestricted executive power when it didn't.
I go back to my old suspicion that "William Hopwood" is a spambot designed by psychological researchers to see how much babbling nonsense people can tolerate in a discussion without having an aneurysm.
Chris Bray -
6/6/2009
You are pathetic and a whiner.
William Hopwood -
6/6/2009
What sophmoric nonsense. Grow up.
William Hopwood -
6/6/2009
"You can't even follow your own argument, you've answered versions of my questions that aren't actually my questions, and you don't appear to understand the word "exemption."
Ok. Be specific. Which exemptions did you mean other than those photos NOT blocked by SecDef? It was those exemptions which I clearly addressed in my response. If I was wrong tell us what other "exemptions" you had in mind with your question. And if you had other "exemptions" in mind, why wasn't your question specific as to which exemptions?
"Your authoritarian fetish for unrestrained executive power during eternal "wartime" -- no declaration of war exists, btw
Irrelevant. Congress gave the President
authority to move against iraq when
he considered the time appropriate
to do so. War conditions existed
when that occurred.
"Typically, you cite WWII internment cases, but don't have anything to say about Hamdi or Boumediene."
So what? The WWII precedents still hold.
Chris Bray -
6/6/2009
The weakest, cheapest, dumbest, laziest rhetorical dodge on earth is the one about "ad hominem attacks." Have you ever watched Prime Minister's Questions?
"Ad Hominem Attacks," a play by Chris Bray:
Hopwood: Swiss cheese is made out of donkey shit and pipe tobacco!
Sane Person: You're wrong -- it's made out of milk.
Hopwood: Oh, I see, "you're wrong." The argument is about me, now! You've got nothing to say, so you engage in ad hominem attacks!
[exeunt]
Robert Bateman and Victor Davis Hanson had an exchange, couple years ago, in which Bateman said something like, "VDH is full of shit." And Hanson spent the next infinity-billion paragraphs pressing his handkerchief to his forehead and moaning that, my goodness heavens, Mr. Bateman uses poopie words! It's like watching a variation on Marat/Sade where all the inmates are played by parodies of Victorians.
"That's a stupid thing to say."
"Ohh, ad hominem, sir, ad hominem!"
Chris Bray -
6/5/2009
You can't even follow your own argument, you've answered versions of my questions that aren't actually my questions, and you don't appear to understand the word "exemption."
Your authoritarian fetish for unrestrained executive power during eternal "wartime" -- no declaration of war exists, btw -- is old stuff, and has as little value as ever. Typically, you cite WWII internment cases, but don't have anything to say about Hamdi or Boumediene. You're servile and unfit for citizenship in a republic. But we already knew that.
William Hopwood -
6/5/2009
I see that as your position weakens, your ad hominems increase. In the interest of civil discourse and in respect for the dignity of this forum, I will refrain from responding to such remarks.
"You know about the thing you mention because I gave you a link to it, and you use the information you got from my post, with my links, to tell me that my post doesn't contain that information."
One would be well-advised to check out your links not only to get a more detailed story but to get the straight story. That shouldn't be necessasary. In this case your post was clearly disingenuous.
"I challenge you to explain the exemptions to me in your own words..."
Sure. When, in the judgement of the SecDef after consulting with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the release of a particular photo or photos would be dangerous to the well-being of U.S. citizens or members of the Armed Forces or U.S. employees serving outside the U.S.,the SecDef can certify that said photo or photos shall not be disclosed. What's so tough about that?
"... I challenge you to identify the procedure by which an interested party -- the ACLU, say -- may appeal the decision of the SecDef. "
As I see it, under this ACT there is none, nor, in my view should there be. Of course the ACLU can challenge the constitutionality of the ACT but so what? They know the drill. Good luck!
The ACLU was always around to raise nutty objections in wartime as if the war did not exist.
"... What's the point of having three branches of government if we can just rely upon "the judgement and integrity" of individual officers within the executive branch?"
You remind me of an expression during WWII
often used to answer people who asked questions like that: "Hey! Don't you know there's a war on?"
"... What's the point of having three branches of government if we can just rely upon "the judgement and integrity" of individual officers within the executive branch?"
The Executive branch has extra powers during wartime which have been spelled out clearly by Supreme Court decisions in the past. Koremtsu, Hirabyashi are cases in point and such decisions still stand. As Justice Frankfurter said in his concurring opinion in Korematsu:
"...the validity of action under the war power must be judged wholly in the context of war. That action is not to be stigmatized as lawless because like action in times of peace would be lawless. To talk about a military order that expresses an allowable judgment of war need by those entrusted with the duty of conducting war as 'an unconstitutional order' is to suffuse part of the Constitution with an atmosphere of unconstitutionality.
Chris Bray -
6/5/2009
I find it difficult to have these discussions with someone for whom I have not the slightest respect, and your inability to see the failures in your own lame arguments make me laugh out loud:
"...both the Graham release and the ACT itself (to which you also linked) contain an exception to the blockage of photographs. You deleted this information from your original post..."
The information you linked to, which you deleted. You know about the thing you mention because I gave you a link to it, and you use the information you got from my post, with my links, to tell me that my post doesn't contain that information. I assume you use shoes with velcro closures.
I challenge you to explain the exemptions to me in your own words, and I challenge you to identify the procedure by which an interested party -- the ACLU, say -- may appeal the decision of the SecDef.
As for my opinion of "the judgement and integrity of the SecDef and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs," you are missing the point, as you unfailingly manage to do. Our government was notionally structured on a system of checks and balances, following the premise that freedom and accountability cannot be sustained by reliance upon individuals. What's the point of having three branches of government if we can just rely upon "the judgement and integrity" of individual officers within the executive branch?
You don't know history, you don't understand our system of government, you apparently can't read or reason, and you can't follow an argument to save your life.
William Hopwood -
6/5/2009
Yes, but both the Graham release and the ACT itself (to which you also linked) contain an exception to the blockage of photographs. You deleted this information from your original post thereby leaving the impression that all photographs could be blocked which is not the case.
From your further explanation above it would appear that the omission might have been intentional because of the low opinion you seem to have of the judgement and integrity of the SecDef and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, either the current ones or whomever they might, from time to time, be.
Chris Bray -
6/5/2009
The above interpretation is from Lindsey Graham's press release, which I linked to so you could check it for yourself. The intention is perfectly clear, and the language you highlight is a transparent joke. How would the secretary of defense honestly and accurately "determine" what would happen in the future? What language in the bill creates checks and balances to ensure that the SecDef won't use his authority under the bill for political purposes?
William Hopwood -
6/5/2009
"This same week, with only three "no" votes, the United States Senate passed the Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009. That measure, inserted into an appropriations bill from the House, would "block release of...photographs that depict the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody."
The above interpretation of the Amendment appears to be more sinister than justified.
Indeed, only certain photos would be blocked
and they would be only those which:
"...the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, determines that the disclosure of that photograph would endanger--
(A) citizens of the United States; or
(B) members of the Armed Forces or employees of the United States Government deployed outside the United States."
What's wrong with that?
Chris Bray -
6/4/2009
To put that a little differently:
Didi: We have investigated ourselves thoroughly, and we have written a report on our own behavior. You are welcome to read it.
Gogo: What is the report based on? What evidence did you use to reach your conclusions?
Didi: Oh, weve made it illegal for us to show you any of that. Move along.
It's transparency without transparency -- flawless political judo.
Anne Zook -
6/4/2009
I was wondering if I was crazy, thinking much the same thing.
It's all very well for the US to call for other countries to examine, and expose, their darker moments, but it's better to lead by example. Even aside from our recent foray into state-sponsored torture, we have plenty of skeletons in our own closet.
Chris Bray -
6/4/2009
I think the Red Queen's formulation was, "verdict first, evidence later." We've had investigations and reports -- why do we need to see the evidence?
Robert KC Johnson -
6/4/2009
I could easily imagine an effective administration response if the PRC government followed Chris' advice. Comprehensive investigations of elements of the Bush administration's policies have occurred from the Senate Armed Services Committee and (upcoming) the Senate Intelligence Committee. The administration (wisely, in my opinion) elected not to contest the ACLU's FOIA lawsuit on releasing the OLC memos. And it seems to be conventional wisdom that the administration will be releasing more memos at some point fairly soon.
While that list of actions doesn't go as far as I would like (I favor a 9/11-style Truth Commission to deal with the abuses of the Bush administration, though I don't necessarily believe such a commission would require release of every photograph in the government's possession), those actions by the adm. are certainly a huge step in the direction of moving to "examine openly the darker events of its past and provide a public accounting of those killed, detained or missing, both to learn and to heal."
