Edited message

Mark Moran · Post by **Mark Moran** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:56 am

In the most recent online New Yorker there is a report about a documentary made of a soldier in Abu Graibh who photographed abuses. It chronicles a story that I believe has never been fully accounted for by the Bush Administration. But thats my personal opinion.

I had posted a link to a slide show of some of these pictures, which are qjuite explicit. I had misgivings about it as soon as I did it, and I think it was hasty. The subject makes me crazy (and thats a short drive anyway).

My apologies. Ive deleted it. If you want to go look for yourself, go to the New Yorker website, lead story

Bret Callentine · Post by **Bret Callentine** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:07 am

is there a point you're trying to make with this, or do you just like posting random news articles from 2004?

Ryan Salo · Post by **Ryan Salo** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:08 am

WARNING - Those are fairly graphics pictures for those that want to be warned prior to clicking.

I hear GWB was the one taking the pictures and it was Condoleezza's idea...

And no one got in trouble for this, they were all praised, promoted and given raises...

Old news.

Mark Moran · Post by **Mark Moran** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:14 am

Its from the recent online New Yorker. The subject makes me see red--it should make you too. Thats my point. Old news my :shock:

And there's nothinjg humorous about it.

Is there a way I can delete it?

Ryan Salo · Post by **Ryan Salo** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:25 am

The date right from your link shows May 3, 2004.

Not old news? That is humorous...

:lol:

Richard Cole · Post by **Richard Cole** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 2:56 pm

I went to the March 19 2008 edition of Online New Yorker and read:

Annals of War
Exposure
The woman behind the camera at Abu Ghraib.
March 24, 2008.

Not sure how they got the 3/24 date?

Obviously, the photographs were from an earlier time period.

Ryan Salo · Post by **Ryan Salo** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:23 pm

That was the direct link he had put up - an article with pictures, dated from 2004. Had he put the link to the cover story this would not have been a topic for discussion

Richard Cole · Post by **Richard Cole** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:45 pm

Ryan Salo wrote:That was the direct link he had put up - an article with pictures, dated from 2004. Had he put the link to the cover story this would not have been a topic for discussion

But in the initial post it is made abundently clear what the topic of conversation was. And a very good article it is.

Ryan Salo · Post by **Ryan Salo** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 8:20 pm

Richard,

Quick LO lesson, "edited" means edited.

The "initial" post mentioned nothing.

He had a title that was something about how bad Bush is and a link to the OLD pictures. That was it, nothing else. Mark changed the title and made a completely new initial post after all the other posts. I really wish you couldnâ€™t edit something after someone responds, it make for crazy conversations.

Now that the facts are out I will accept your apology for rolling your eyes at me

Ryan Salo · Post by **Ryan Salo** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 8:20 pm

Maybe you can just go and edit yours now :shock:

Mark Moran · Post by **Mark Moran** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 9:44 pm

Um.....look. I read the New Yorker article because I log onto the New Yorker from time to time. I saw the pics, which Id seen before. They are linked to the article. I posted the pics, not the article (which I should have posted) in a flush of fury because the subject, as Ive said, makes me crazy. Yeah, the pics are old, but they were part of the New Yorker article. This is very definetly NOT old news, because we are still torturing prisoners in Guantanamo, and the President has again endorsed the use the "enhanced interrogation." That news continues to reverberate on Al Jazeera and elsewhere as "proof" that we are full of it about the values we profess to proclaim; it has probably endangered our troops, and possibly resulted in the deaths of our soldiers. Christopher HItches (my favorite writer and a supporter of the war has said as much). I wrote an article in the LO about torture entitled "Outrage" which I am sure dozens of people read that outlined why I think its a terrible terrible stain on our country. Its not about being fair to terrorists. "Three squares, cable," etc--this is so typical of the response. No one is--well, Im not--advocating making life pleasant for suspected terrorists. There are a lot of ways to make life extremely unpleasant for people without waterboarding them. Its about upholding the rule of law, which is what we are supposed to stand for. And its about protecting our own people. The Geneva Convention agreements were signed--were iniatiated by us--primarily as protection for our own people. Neo-cons and their supporters like to roll their eyes at those they assume are just to naive to know how dangerous the world is, etc etc etc etc, and assume a world weary stance as if they are arguing with children. Its they that have a very childish understaning of power as if it were a simple addition of guns and missles and tanks when it is a complicated calculus of all of that (miliatry might) X perception X public relationsXwhat people think of us times X our credibilty.
Torture is wrong morally. It is also wrong because it gets bad intelligence, and because it is diminishing our power to defeat an enemy in a complicated war.

Mark Moran · Post by **Mark Moran** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:08 pm

And because when this news first broke there should have been an immediate housecleaning of teh DOD, starting at the top, regardless of whether anyone could be held "legally" accountable----which there wasnt. The Bush Presidency, touted as being run like a corporation, fires no one, holds no one accountable for anything.

Richard Cole · Post by **Richard Cole** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:30 am

Ryan Salo wrote:Richard,

Quick LO lesson, "edited" means edited.

Now that the facts are out I will accept your apology for rolling your eyes at me

Phuh - I read what was posted, nothing else. Perhaps if your message was in response to a posted message that had been edited, you need to alter your response?

Ryan Salo · Post by **Ryan Salo** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:58 am

Ok Richard that makes a lot of sense, now I know how serious to take you. Thanks for making that clear. One less person I need to read...

:shock:

Richard Cole · Post by **Richard Cole** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 7:51 am

Ryan Salo wrote:Ok Richard that makes a lot of sense, now I know how serious to take you. Thanks for making that clear. One less person I need to read...

So be it - but have you read the article yet?