Helen Thomas to Obama: If you see the importance of Neda video, why won't you release abuse photos?

Glen Greenwald has the details (6-24-09):



See the rest: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/24/photo...

Because we do want people attacking the Basij, and we don't want people attacking American soldiers.

What does she think the torture photos would do? Endear the Muslim world to the United States?

Also, wouldn't those photos be a gift to the Iranian government which would promptly use them for propaganda?

Do you think our choosing to be transparent about our transgressions would somehow give Iran ammunition to........?

The photos aren't a gift to anyone. They are a necessary part of our getting the political gumption to prosecute the Bush administration for war crimes. War crimes that they did commit, BTW. And no, the crime wasn't taking the pictures, no matter how much Rumsfeld might wish us to believe that, it was the events that were photographed that are the problem.

She is a reporter asking questions. She's doing her job. Is Obama? I don't believe so, in this case.

ordered

Would that be fair?

this straight.

People are attacking the Basij because they are doing things that are morally reprehensible?
So is that why people would be attacking U.S. Soldiers?

So then the Basij are wrong and need to be held accountable for there actions by whatever means possible in your view; but the U.S soldiers/military personnel slide? I am not saying they should be attacked; though the U.S. Military dug themselves this hole by breaking and/or fudging(knowingly reinterpreting the language of laws with full knowledge that they were in the wrong) of U.S. and International laws, and are going to have a rough time pulling their self's out of it; but should they not be held accountable?

And that goes to Helen Thomas question. "Then why won't you allow the photos --". If one is ever to be held accountable, it is in a open and transparent government; it is never behind closed doors and out of sight.(laughter)

...or there are probably some sick'o onlines sites where you can look at pictures of torture and
war wounds, I mean if your really into that type of thing.

The torture story has already been exposed in the news, why sicko people want to see that kind of stuff
beats the shit out of me.

When the news media breaks a story on some guy who been caught with child porn to you long to
see those pictures too?! Where the fuck does you modesty begin?

The torture story has already been exposed in the news, why sicko people want to see that kind of stuff
beats the shit out of me.

Because that "kind of stuff" that "sicko people", as you so eloquently put it, will go to show just how far that torture went, as torture is wrong. It is not about the straw man you put up (some guy dealing child pornography out of his basement does not equate to a systemic torturing of adults and children by a large group of other adults with a chain of command), or wanting to see the pictures like some type of gapers block at a roadside accident. There are photos from other conflicts in this worlds recent history, that are quite disturbing; even possibly more disturbing than the torture photos; is there anyone calling for those to be shuffled away?
You know it is all about that transparent government thing; also there is no modesty in breaking the law(especially at this level of involvement), or should all of us just be good little citizens; and if we hope hard enough it will all just magically go away or someone will eventually take care of it?

TORTURE is torture. There is no degree. Look it up in the dictionary.

I don't need to see a picture of torture to know torture. Do you?

Or do you just get off on pictures of suffering people. To each his own I guess.

Have a nice day.

IS NOT necessarily the same as another. Of course, it all induces pain and fear, but some is more horrible and can be administered in ways that make it slower and even more painful than other types of torture.

I don't know where you're getting your information, but some people have NO IDEA what torture really is and a dictionary definition will do nothing to help them understand. Words on a page are far less convincing than images.

To many Americans this is the discussion of a WORD, not horrific acts of physical violence against human beings. There are still ignorant assholes who are saying that waterboarding isn't even torture.

damn near strikes me dumb. You are a hypocrite.

http://www.democraticunderground.com /

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

"Because that "kind of stuff" that "sicko people", as you so eloquently put it, will go to show just how far that torture went, as torture is wrong."

Me and every motherfucker that owns a computer knows how far the torture went, and unless your gopeepee, know how wrong it is. I don't need photos to convince me. I think the poster you're replying to is right. Thanks.
quickesst

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

We know the Bush admin authorized torture and there is already ample evidence. That's enough to get him thrown in jail along with his culprits. We get the fucking picture (no pun intended). We don't need to see more. Nothing good will come out of it.

was was done in their name. And perhaps the outrage will be enough to get our government to stop being terrified of doing the right thing. The right thing being to prosecute many in the Bush Admin for war crimes. Would that words alone would do it, but the average American doesn't read, or just doesn't care about what is written.

If the war criminals are prosecuted, then that is the good that will come out of it.

There seems to be something really pornographic about looking at them. The ones I saw were bad enough....

not for me

Seriously, you are equating the release of torture photos with the proliferation of child porn? Insane.

one is sex, another is a documentation of a death and torture... supposed some people think the two will be seen as the same, maybe like they do, but sure as hell not me.

I think most grown-ups can tell the difference between porn and torture/murder...

Where in the world do you get off having the tenacity to accuse those who believe the pictures ought to be released of having some morbid curiosity? Just where do you get up the nerve to come on here and say that because someone feels that these pictures need to be seen to wake people up that somehow that's wrong? I couldn't agree with you more. Consider, for example, the events of the Holocaust -- how many people would be in denial of those horrible events if the pictures and videos had not been released. You sound as bad as Barbara Bush in this post and your responses to others' replies. That's the real "sick" part here.

Hmmph, you probably do. But you're wrong. The actions happened. The pictures need to be released because the average person in this country doesn't care until they see photos. We need to get the outrage going so that the Bush administration is prosecuted for war crimes. Did I mention the war crimes? It's about the fucking war crimes, get it?!?!

If you have to use straw men arguments, at least try to think them through a little bit. Otherwise, you have the chance of letting your stupid show. You wouldn't want that would you? Did I happen to mention the war crimes?

No one wants to see torture photos because they are "into" torture photos. They want them released because it just might lend some political will to prosecuting and holding in account the people that ordered the torture and conducted the torture. It's mind blowing to me how many of us are willing to cast aside the rule of law, just because we got our guy in the White House and we don't want to upset the applecart. Many of us were attack dogs for the last 8 years and then on November 4th 2008 became the guard dogs. Pathetic.

have been marched through the concentration camps to see the results of Hitler's "final solution"?

Don't try to frame the viewing of the torture pics as some sort of voyeurism, which it certainly is not. The American people need to OWN what they have done and what's been done in their name.

Apparently, many Americans are still clueless about what torture really is. Perhaps graphically representing such horrors is the only way to break through their denial, and that would go for people like my neighbor who says to me, "I don't care what they do to 'those people'".

She hasn't the faintest idea what she's talking about. Of course, she watches Fux News 24/7, so I guess that explains it.

I'll say again: WE NEED TO OWN WHAT WE HAVE DONE! And Obama needs to grow a pair. Release the photos.

"We want them attacking US forces, not the Basij"-- Kamanei can say this also.

When you throw morality and consistency out the window (like you just did) in exchange for hypocritical self-interest, you lose all moral authority. Not only that, but you personally are hurting your own cause by flaunting hypocrisy.

After a statement like that, why should anyone listen to anything you have to say? You've essentially admitted that being consistent is unimportant, and only self-interest should govern actions, so how can anyone believe what you say is anything other than self-interest? After what you said, I actually expect your statements to be solely motivated by self-interest, and therfore truth is secondary (or possibly not even a consideration for you).

And yes he is choosing convenience over moral consistency because, at least in the short run, it's in our nation's self-interest to do so. I can't think of a single world leader who doesn't do that on at least some occasions.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and thats fine by me. I have a lot of respect and admiration for her.I think she has plenty of sense already.

She thinks on her feet and puts people half her age and younger to shame.

I think she keeps Obama on his toes and he handles her well, and with humor.

She is the only print reporter in DC that has any integrity.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...and having an opportunity to respond to those images.

The government of Iran wants it (the photos/video) suppressed there

Obama wants the photos suppressed here.

Both are government censorship.

Not to say I don't understand Obama's reasons (to protect our troops he has left in harms way from further harm and to reduce inflammatory PR)

but that is exactly what the Mullahs want too.

Freedom of the press and freedom of information are too important for the government to decide what we see and what we do not, even if it is awful and will stir outrge.

The outrage ought to be Obama outrage at Bush and Cheney instead of protecting them. He should release the pictures and prosecute the bastards.

On the grounds that the people would be so mad that violent protests against the Obama administration would ensue? That is an important question, and it prompts this other question:

Does President Obama agree that if this type of atrocity occurs in say, Guatemala, and the Guatemalan government attempts to suppress a similar video on the grounds of violence threat...would Obama agree?

The deliberate murder of an American citizen by deployed American forces on American soil would be nearly unprecedented; you have to reach back to Kent State to find a similar situation, and there have since been major changes in crowd control tactics and equipment.

For your hypothetical, you're imagining a situation in which the police are unable to control a crowd, the military are called in, and soldiers decide to use live ammunition instead of the many non-lethal and less-lethal system, and that the only person who got it on videotape is another soldier, who immediately turns the tape in to a superior officer, who then informs the world of the tape's existence but announces he will not release it except if ordered to do so.

You simply should have said that this hypothetical scenario would never happen, instead of guessing Obama's reaction.

If you had said, "Suppose the world's mimes rise up and form an enormous army, only with invisible, pantomimed guns and tanks, and they decided to invade France (in order to liberate their homeland). Since France is a NATO ally, would we then use tactical nuclear weapons to prevent the mimes from winning?"

Just as with your hypothetical, the answer is "probably not." If such a situation were to occur, Obama would probably not act as the question suggests he might, because such a course of action would be stupid: more in line with a comic-book villain version of the President than with Obama himself.

Just as with your hypothetical, such a situation is extraordinarily unlikely to occur, and that should be recognized alongside the answer to the question.

We often here this:

X tells Y: I did it because N told me to do it.
Y replies: If N told you to jump off a bridge...would you do it?

That is a very valid hypothetical question, even though it's unlikely that N would ask X to jump off a bridge.

It's logic.

I provided both an answer and an explanation of impracticality.

but then it was muddled by your explanation of how unlikely the logical questions spicy had.

"special ops" teams that are members of our military whose duties only a very few Americans know about.

None other than Seymour Hersch recently exposed the assassination squads that have been deployed under the direct authority of Vice President Cheney. Who is to say that these individuals were not used to "take out" U.S. citizens who possessed knowledge that the government did not want revealed?

Given the level of fascist mentality in our government and among some of our military, it would not surprise me in the least if our own special operations teams weren't doing just what you insinuate they are not doing.

I'm not talking about military units being called in to suppress demonstrations. I'm talking about assassination teams being used to eliminate "threats".

"The deliberate murder of an American citizen . . . on American soil would be nearly unprecedented . . ."

What about the deliberate murder of more than 18,000 Americans (on American soil) annually, that's roughly at least one every half hour?
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=314572
A video of every person's final minutes would likely incite the populace to finally demand a long overdue end to for profit health 'care.'

Would Obama attempt to supress said video?
Would you back him if he did?

that made me think, "what the fuck?" as on this one. The person you responded to made sense. This not so much. At least you aren't like the person above who is likening us to torture pornsters.

The video in Iran was shot by an amateur. That person went home and put it on YouTube/MSN Video/whatever. How is any government going to suppress something like that, short of confiscating all recording equipment and shutting down their internet access?

There is a distinction between the control of government sourced information and a person walking by on the street who records the action of a government.

I don't see the link. Now if Iran had taken the woman into custody, tortured her, and then released the photos of torture, then maybe Helen would have an argument that makes sense.

government-backed armed personnel from a country commit atrocious acts and they are captured on film

Basij from Iran assassinate an innocent civilian and it is captured on film

Soldiers from the United States tortured people and it is captured on film

Things need not be exactly alike to be compared

Occam has it right above, the answer is obvious, but is it the right answer and can Obama actually say it?

The biggest difference here is that the US Government is the producer of the Gitmo photos. In Iran this was not the Iranian government issuing video of their own atrocities.

So we have private photos made at a private facility versus an amateur video taken on a public street.

It doesn't make what we did right by any means, but it's also why I feel there is no equality there for Helen's question.

And suppression or not of each. Actually, the Iranian government would have been ecstatic not to have had the pictures of Neda get out.

I know. The Manson killings... surely we have some graphic photos to remind us that bad shit happened with that...

He died as a result of the death penalty that is part of our legal system.

And trust me. People wouldn't riot if they saw McVeigh's death.

The Supreme Leader of Iran decreed the day after the election that lethal force may be used to put down any demonstrations. A new Constitution with greater protections against arbitrary exercises of power is indeed one of the things the protesters are demanding.

So, yeah, while her violent death may of been state sanctioned, we have people in the US dying in their beds, unable to afford treatment. Maybe we need to get a couple of them on camera

Egads, like showing the torture photos at this time is going to help anything... besides, they are available if one knows how to google...

has come & gone. She's still pissed that Obama had the temerity to beat her preferred candidate, and it shows. She penned her first hitpiece when the President hadn't even been in office for 30 days yet. So, her continued assault on him comes as no surprise.

I mean, did you just see the things she would say to Bush? I was flabbergasted

the candidate she backed for the presidency, who actually voted for the Iraq War, and threatened to "obliterate Iran". Helen's a big fat, old hypocrite whose time has come & gone. If you can show me where she has ever taken her preferred candidate to task, I'll take her critique of this administration seriously.

She has her knife out for this administration, and I posted a poison piece she had written during the primaries in favor of Hillary, and using the same arguments as Gerri Ferraro against the president, but of course it was deleted. She seems to think the president received preferential treatment because of his race. She needs to get over it.

She should rot in hell, like me. And anybody who supported her (or any candidate who isn't named Barack Obama) has no right, ever to question the President (who I worked damn hard for by the way, and I just had a wonderful and rewarding experience with as well)


P.S. I was over the primaries long ago.

behind a candidate who actually voted for the clusterfuck in which we currently find ourselves, and she wants to hassle the guy who's trying to figure a way out? One could say that Hillary is partly responsible for the invasion, as well as everything that has resulted from that huge mistake (abuses at Abu Ghraib(sp); Guantanamo; black site prisons; renditions, etc) but I'll be damned if I can find one of Helen's poison columns condemning her friend, and preferred candidate, for that vote.

Helen spent most of Bill Clinton's administration defending him from the jackals on the right, but she has chosen to throw this Democratic president under the bus? There's a reason for that, and I'm allowed to speculate as to the reason why, just as you're allowed to speculate about every move the president makes.

Unless the rules are different for the president than those who cover him, I'd say there's a huge contingency of hypocrites at DU. We're so often told by the Obama critics that we shouldn't blindly and unquestioningly follow him. Does that sentiment not extend to Helen as well?

You need to get over it.

That's all she had to do.

You fail to expose a pattern of hatred from Thomas' part against Obama. Helen Thomas does not have a beef with Obama the person. She has been with the policies that she considers to go against her progressive ideals.

Geez, Faux "News" much?

Just give 'em a song and a dance and deflect them with a clever response when the truth is too painful.

He's only 42, and he agrees with Thomas.

The fucker never had one to begin with.

According to Obama's buddy Marc Ambinder:



http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/05/the_rubicon_of_...

Because that's what will most likely happen there. It really seems like the ultra libs here would rather risk it just to make their point.

Let em revolt if they want to. If they are just being peaceful based on the false premise that we don't torture, seems like they are living a delicate lie that will crumble anyway.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003...

We're the ones being kept in the dark - it makes it easier to pretend no one should be prosecuted for war crimes.

You really think this is about making a point? Yes, I suppose you do.

I think Helen would be better served making her case against withholding the torture photographs. I honor Helen's many years of service, but this comparative argument doesn't make sense.

But this quote here is where the connection lies...

"anybody who sees it knows that there's something fundamentally unjust" about the violence; and paying homage to "certain international norms of freedom of speech, freedom of expression"

Her question arises out Obama talking about violence that it fundamentally unjust, and torture is just that. He then talks about norms of free speech, the main crux of the whole debate over the torture photos. It's not really much of a different question at all. Yes, there are differences between the two cases, clearly, but they both revolve around unacceptable violence and freedom of speech and how we deal with them, and whether or not we do so consistently.

Greenwald sees this connection as well, and adds plenty of context that Helen will never get the chance to in a presser.

The single most significant event in shaping worldwide revulsion towards the violence of the Iranian government has been the video of the young Iranian woman bleeding to death, the so-called "Neda video." Like so many iconic visual images before it -- from My Lai, fire hoses and dogs unleashed at civil rights protesters, Abu Ghraib -- that single image has done more than the tens of thousands of words to dramatize the violence and underscore the brutality of the state response.

He goes on to expand on this poll, and the connection between the two.


It would be one thing for the Obama administration to argue that there is no value in releasing torture photos specifically, and in investigating and imposing accountability for past abuses generally, if there were consensus among Americans that torture is wrong, barbaric and -- as Ronald Reagan put it (hypocritically but still emphatically) -- "an abhorrent practice" justifiable by "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever." But we have the opposite of that consensus: we have an ongoing debate over torture that is fluid, vibrant and far from settled, with half the population embracing the twisted and morally depraved pro-torture position. For that reason, to suppress evidence of what our torture actually looks like and the brutality it entails -- particularly graphic evidence -- is to make it easier for that pro-torture position to thrive, just as it would have been easier for the Iranian Government to slaughter protesters with impunity if they had succeeded in suppressing the images of what they were doing..

The torture photographs have been tucked away for years. It's a different dynamic, but I do get your point.

I advocate transparency, however, I can see the case made on withholding the torture photos (not that I agree with it). Obama is being pressed by military families because they fear reprisals.

Unfortunately Obama failed to release a long-awaited report on detainee abuse last Friday and it is that that bothers me most of all.

He should have answered the question.

There's a procedure ... he chooses whom he wants to call on, Gibbs does the same thing ... not everyone gets a question and everyone understands that.

What if everyone just shouted questions at him?

Why would she be allowed to and others not?

what is he, Louis XIV?

again I ask, SHE is aloud to interrupt and blurt out her question? What if everyone just shouted at the President until he answered them? If Chuck Todd did that, there'd be 14 threads about it.

There are rules of order and all parties are aware of them. Adults generally behave in a respectful manner to one another.

...but she IS God's Gift to our democracy.


I remembered a time when Helen's irreverence to the Powers that Be were applauded on DU.
We even sent her flowers.
How quickly she has been discounted because it is now Our Team in the White House.

Our government does NOT fear inciting the Middle East by releasing these photos.
The Middle East already KNOWS what happened in the dark American dungeons.

Our government fears inciting Americans to actually demand JUSTICE.
The same thing the government of Iran fears.
Helen made a valid comparison.

... personally I dont think there's much room for snark among adults in the work place I dont care WHERE the workplace is.

And you'll forgive me if I think THIS White House deserves a bit more respect than the last one. To quote Chris Cillizza, "CNN Headline: "Pres. Obama ANSWERS Questions". So true."

If he had CALLED on her and she had asked the question you wouldn't hear me complaining.

The Obama White House is "Pre-screening" questions.
ONLY approved Questioners are called on, and they are notified in advance that they will be called on.

I have no verification as of yet.
Merely heard it on today's Thom Hartmann Show.

.... the Health Forum tonight?

I can GUARANTEE you they're not pre-screening questions during briefings because I watch just about every one of them .... if they are, they'r doing a terrible job at picking them lol.

If they did do that, Bushie Boy would have done ...eh..betterer. The only one who knows they will be called on first is the senior correspondent for the largest wire service - which in the PAST has been Helen Thomas

Back when DU was still a progressive politics discussion site.

The answers posted on this thread are, IMO, indicitive of where DU finds itself today. It would appear that we are a house divided against itself. In one camp we have the loyalists to the man himself. In the other camp, we find the loyalists to what should be the ideals of the party.

It has become almost impossible to have a rational discussion without the two camps going for each other's throats. Personally, although I don't miss GWB and his cohorts, I do wish we could find a common enemy instead of spending our time and energy villifying each other. It's depressing and unproductive.

Some of DU is still try to conduct a progressive politics discussion. We just have to duck all the pom poms.

Time to send Helen some more flowers.

If we only had more like Helen, think of the evils and blunders that may have been avoided in the last decade.

If nothing earns my disrespect it is willful hypocrisy and outright refusal to acknowledge logic. It is a simple matter. If this was Bush in place of Obama they'd be singing her praises; however, now that it is someone from our team they become acrobatic wordsmiths in their pathetic leaps in logic and hypocritical hurdles. Disgusting.

It really isn't any more okay if it's "my side" pulling the crap. If anything, I hold this administration to a higher standard, because the leader, President Obama, isn't a post turtle, like the last one was.

and was very proud of DU.




http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

to the powers that be. They were often very uncomfortable questions. She's just old school.

That would explain some of the shock and outrage.

though I think the photos do need to be released eventually.

then scamper off when confronted with facts. Link to Obama's statement saying he wants those photos released (and not before he changed his mind) or take your statement back.

Do we need to see the really gory, horric photos?

Did we really need to see the face of Neda, over and over again as she died, in order to understand what "Iranians are being shot" meant? There was a time CNN would have censored that and we would have wanted it that way.

Nice sense of propriety all the way around.

with roses by DU is now verbally crucified by some of the same people for daring to ask biting questions of the POTUS. The only difference is that the names have changed. She is STILL the fabulous journalist that she has always been.
Such hypocrisy.

Apparently criticism is only a good thing when it is directed at certain people, like Obama, but a bad thing when directed at other people, like Helen Thomas. Well, isn't that special?

Or ad-hominem attacks such as "her mind is deteriorating?"

Not all criticism is created equal.

LOL! That's a new one!

When she tried to pin Bush down she was a hero, but doing the same to Obama is wrong?

I vote for more roses.

Idiotic comments from people whose sole understanding of the world comes from sitting on a computer and lobbying pot shots at the President, Ms Thomas, etc is another

We have too many people who are disinterested in criticism and more interested in making inflammatory comments about her sanity or her age.

I'm ready to send more roses.

Now I know how Bush maintained a solid 25% following no matter what.

this place is fucking pathetic.

I'm seeing this a lot all of a sudden. Is it an import abbreviation from another site? Like our kick or k/r or kicked and recommended?