DETAINEE ABUSE PHOTOS MUST NOT BE RELEASED, AT LEAST NOT RIGHT NOW - WACKED-OUT MILITANTS DO NOT NEED ANOTHER REASON TO KILL

Abusive photos taken by United States' soldiers of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan should not be released to the public, at least not right now. The release of 21 photos has nothing to do with privacy rights or government transparency; instead, it has everything to do with protecting American troops who are still in Afghanistan fighting a war against a bunch of lunatics. Only when every soldier is safely back on American soil should the photos be released.FILE - This 2003 file photo obtained by The Associated Press shows a detainee bent over with his hands on the bars of a prison cell at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, Iraq. Congress is set to give the Pentagon power to keep new pictures of detainee abuse from the public, a move intended to end a legal fight over the photographs' release that has reached the Supreme Court (AP Photo/file)

Understanding the Legal Battle

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the government, arguing 21 photographs of abuse should be released to the public pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. The government has unsuccessfully argued that the photos are exempt from FOIA's mandatory disclosure because they "could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual." 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(F).

The lower courts have ruled in the ACLU's favor and the government has lost its appeals. The district court recognized the risk of violent acts as a result of the release of the photos but said that "our nation does not surrender to blackmail, and fear of blackmail is not a legally sufficient argument." Essentially, the judges agreed with the government -- that there is a risk to our soldiers -- but that their hands were tied by FOIA. The court of appeals also said the release of the photos could "incite violence" but that the government had to identify a specific individual who would be threatened under the exemption and since it could not, the photos are not exempt.

This is craziness! The courts acknowledge the risk of violence to our troops; but, since the risk is to the group of American soldiers as a whole, not to a named individual, the risk is not "specific" enough. Well, if we use that thinking, then why the hell are we in Afghanistan in the first place? We are not only there to identify "specific" people, like named Taliban and al Qaeda leaders; we are also there to hunt down any Taliban or al Qaeda militant.

Our mission in Afghanistan is broad based; therefore, the protections to our soldiers must be broad based as well. We are at war, folks. Why risk a militant capturing an American soldier or journalist and torturing him in retaliation to the release of the photos? Requiring the name a specific soldier who could be targeted is absolutely silly.

I believe in transparency and the public's right to access government documents. (For example, Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis tried to protect the names of CPD officers accused of abuse. I believe those names should be disclosed to the public. We have a right to know the names of Chicago's worst cops.) But, there is no need to publish photos to the world that could increase the threat of violence, no matter how small, against our fathers and sons who are fighting in Afghanistan, who are putting their lives on the line in a region filled with crazy-ass insurgents. Keep in mind, the soldiers accused of the abuse were tried and convicted. It is not like the Army did not bring the abusive soldiers to justice.

Legal Battle May Be Killed by Defense Secretary

The final decision, to be made by the Supreme Court, may come as early as Tuesday; however, the White House has asked the justices to withhold their ruling until House and Senate vote on whether absolute power to decide on the photos' release should be given to the defense secretary. Basically, if they vote yes, the ACLU's legal victories will be stripped from them and we can expect Robert Gates to hold those photos closely to his chest. (That's another legal discussion for another day!) AP article here.

If Secretary Gates is granted the power to protect the photos, I hope that he will authorize their release once the war is over. For many reasons, the public has a right to see those images, just not right now. The public does not have a pressing, immediate interest in viewing those photos.

Obama Flips the Script Yet Again

Obama is becoming a master at switching his positions. In the beginning days of his presidency, Obama said he was not opposed to the photos being released and he wanted government transparency. But, in May, Obama said he was now opposed to the release of the photos.  After talking with lawyers, he decided "the release of these photos, particularly at this time, would only serve the purpose of inflaming the theaters of war, jeopardizing US forces, and making our job more difficult in places like Iraq and Afghanistan." Interesting -- now he is in agreement with the Bush administration's refusal to release the photos. 

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/13/obama-broke-his-word-on-d_n_203065.html

Here are a few things to keep in mind:

* The "Darby photographs" are the property of the Department of Defense and Department of the Army.

* To support its position, the government submitted a declaration of General Richard Myers, (then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Nation's highest ranking military officer.) that stated disclosing the Darby photographs "could reasonably be expected" to "endanger the lives and physical safety" of those individuals was based on his extensive military experience, assessments by his combat commanders, intelligence reports from subject-matter experts, the violent response to the release of photographs of detainees in British custody, and the widespread and deadly rioting following the publication of a false story alleging the desecration of detainees' copies of the Koran at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. See Government's Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

* The government already gave the ACLU written descriptions of the photos, which the ACLU has posted on its website. See here.

* This blog is dedicated to my dear childhood friend, Marcia Hofmann, who is a staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Marcia co-authored the amicus briefs with the ACLU in the above case and it is her work that inspired me to really think about the case. Thank you, Marcia. You are such a great friend, scholar and resource.

www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

IT IS NO MYTH: ONLY A TROJAN HORSE COULD PROVIDE VICTORY IN AFGHANISTAN

Obama needs to get the hell out of Afghanistan now. All of these meetings, briefings, memos and summaries are a waste of time. The death toll is rising at a rapid rate, the cost is absolutely absurd, and the people who suggested we enter Iraq are the very same people saying we need more troops in Afghanistan. The idea that we are winning in Afghanistan is only myth that ends with us conquering them with a Trojan horse. You think that sounds absurd? So do I.

Death Toll

With every meeting comes another death. With every briefing comes another roadside bomb. We are losing allies. Just last Thursday, six Italian soldiers were killed - the worst attack on the Italians since their entrance into Afghanistan.

The death toll in July was 76 and August was 77, the highest ever. Before July, the highest number was an entire year prior - August 2008 - the death toll was 46. As of today, September 22, the death toll is 55.  Surely, we can expect more casualties before October 1.

Since 2004, we have lost over 50 more soldiers each year than the previous year. The numbers are going up, not down.

Clearly, the Taliban is getting more violent and are are losing more power. The numbers speak for themselves. Clearly, something is terribly wrong: something like, we need to get the hell out of Afghanistan. We can protect American soil on American soil. We cannot protect American soil in the land of poppy plants, roadside bombs and "martyrs" who believe in killing insurgents -- that would be us, just in case you were wondering.

Courtesty of icasualtiesCost

According to David R. Francis of The Christian Science Monitor: Full Article here.

For the first time, the war in Afghanistan in the next budget year will cost Americans more than the war in Iraq. By the end of the next fiscal year, which starts Oct. 1, the total military budget costs for both wars will have exceeded $1 trillion.

That’s more than the cost of the Vietnam War, adjusting for inflation, or any other US war except World War II ($3.2 trillion in 2007 dollars).

A trillion dollars is hard to imagine. Think of it this way: If you had an expense account good for $1 million a day, it would take 2,935 years to spend $1.071 trillion, which is the actual estimate for the wars’ price tag by Travis Sharp of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington. He reckons the two conflicts will have cost the typical American family of four roughly $13,000 by next year.

Wars, even counterinsurgency conflicts, are expensive in lives and dollars.

Why is Afghanistan getting so expensive? The US is sending more troops, of course. It also costs about 50 percent more to keep a soldier in Afghanistan than in Iraq, says Linda Bilmes, a Harvard University economist. In sharp contrast to flat, urbanized Iraq, most of Afghanistan’s population lives in rural, mountainous terrain with few good roads to link them up.

Officially, Afghanistan war costs are budgeted at $65 billion for fiscal 2010, somewhat more than the $61 billion for the Iraq war.

So as Americans struggle -- they are without jobs, without heath insurance, their homes are in foreclosure -- they continue to pay for a war that has no end. They continue to pay for a war that is providing no answers.

What if we pulled out of Afghanistan and applied all of that money to domestic protection? The best place to protect your home is at your front door, not thousands of miles away, in the mountainous region of Afghanistan.

Infrastructure

The same people who advised Bush to enter Iraq and Afghanistan are advising Obama. The internal forces have not changed. Gen. McChrystal recently stated in a "Commander's Summary" that, "Time matters; we must act now to reverse the negative trends and demonstrate progress." This is the same guy who said, in April 2003 after the fall of Baghdad, "I would anticipate that the major combat engagements are over." He also looks in the mirror every day knowing he was behind the cover-up of the Pat Tillman "friendly fire" incident.  On June 10, 2009 McChrystal was promoted to General - a decision by Obama himself. Shortly thereafter, McChrystal assumed command of NATO operations, Operation Khanjar commenced, marking the largest offensive operation and the beginning of the deadliest combat month for NATO forces since 2001.

This guy is out of his mind. What has he done besides make terribly wrong decisions and create terribly inaccurate plans?

Obama needs to stop relying on the same guys who advised Bush. That's great: send more troops to Afghanistan. But then what? What is the plan? How do we stop the drugs flowing out of there? How do we stop the killing? How do we convince our allies to stay?

Sending more troops is not the answer -- Obama, we gotta get the hell outta there. Pronto.

 www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com