Here are some pictures that the MSM doesn't want you to see.

Gosh! I think your site is the first one who is airing these photos on it.

I guess if it just takes 6 month old cartoons or 3 year old "torture" pictures to get people all wound up again over issues that have died down in the public conscience, we should do it too.

Rand will you post the front page above the fold of any newspaper in the U.S. for a given date please? I have a specific date in mind though, please use September 12. 2001.

Then lets see if the world will object when 1500 or so of our more or less radical citizens set fire to the Saudi Embassy, the Jordanian Embassy, the Pakistani Embassy, etc.

I'll bet we'd be "wrong" for being offended by a simple 3000 people being killed. After all what is 3000 dead Americans set against naked prisoners or cartoons of The Prophet? Who do we think we are?

Yea then to make it even more ironic Michael Yon says the insurgents they capture like being taken to Abu Ghraib now because its so nice, clean, and air conditioned.

It's fascinating how the media justifies various reports and pix.

Why don't they publish pictures of 9-11?
Because that happened a while ago, and it's old news.

Why are they publishing photos from Abu Ghraib?
Because it's new news. Even if it's about past events. And because if it bleeds, it leads.

Why don't you print the cartoons?
Because it would inflame public opinion.

What about the pictures from Abu Ghraib?
The public has a right to know.

i think i honestly dont understand this argument. yes, terrorists commit acts of terrorism. thats not really news. when american soldiers commit acts of terrorism that is news. one of the two is out of the ordinary (or is at least supposed to be). the "msm" also doesnt report on darfur, or any of the other conflicts in the world (or they do, but less than they report about insurgent violence).

if the "msm" was really going after american soldiers, i would think the fairly recent (last fall i think-i could find a link) report of autopsies of people who had been in the militaries control, finding that at least 8 had been tortured to death (ie, died from beatings/chokings/etc, with the overall number of homicides being much larger). this seems to me to be bigger news than abu ghraib or insurgent violence, seeing as bush repeatedly says "we do not torture" (even under his new definition of torture, i believe death counts).

or perhaps they would have reported on the revelations that we used white phosphorous in fallujah.

and another point: if the msm had posted these pictures wouldnt conservatives had simply said "how come they never report the good news from iraq?". or "why does the msm want us to believe that we have horribly destabilized the country?" or something to that effect.

Whenever you see these pictures, it's also a good time to remember this quote:

"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win."
-- Michael Moore

Two wrongs don't make a right. The United States government should not be in the business of torturing people, it should be above that. Hell, how many people at Abu Ghraib are actually guilty or are just there based on rumors or for petty things?

Two wrongs don't make a right. The United States government should not be in the business of torturing people...

Which it isn't. There was never any evidence that the actions that led to the "Abu Ghraib" scandal were ever "business as usual."

If those who claim America is "in the business" of torturing prisoners could present credible evidence of it, they might someday discover what it's like to be taken seriously.

It sounds like Mr. X would fail the Torture Test:
http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/001989.html

TO i can't find the shift key: I'm certain that you are honestly distorting the story such that it is impossible for you to understand it.

First, the MSM did report on the two or three people involved in Abu Ghraib. Missed during much of the coverage was that news of Abu Ghraib came out during the criminal investigation of those two or three soldiers. In short, the Army was already putting a stop to activity that was out of the ordinary and not "business as usual". Again, this story is now 2 years old (events are even older). If you think 2 years is new, I got a new car to sell you.

As for Darfur... yep, the MSM has been fairly quiet about that. The blogosphere has certainly covered it.

As for the "fairly recent report of autopsies", that came out the same time as Abu Ghraib. Again, a military investigation occurred a long time ago, and it is only making news because some lefty folks finally got their FOIA request completed. So, if I submit an FOIA asking for details on Hillary Clinton's health care meetings in 1994, would that be news worthy today?

Oh yeah, death does not count as torture. Even if any US soldier captures a terrorist and then later executes him without trial, then he is following the Geneva Conventions.

The US military admitted using Willy Pete in Fallujah. They also admit using depleted uranium shells for 30mm cannons. Based on international agreements, such as the Geneva Conventions, there is nothing extraordinary about the use of either type of weapon. Why is this news? Both weapons have been deployed and used for decades.

As for the last paragraph... I'm not sure what your point is, but I am certain that it is a strawman.

leland- ill try and address your points in order

-prisoner abuse isnt confined to just abu ghraib, it happens in guantanamo, bagram, etc, and so i really doubt its just "a few bad apples". yes some soldiers have been punished, but so far i am unaware of anyone higher on the chain of command.

-if your foia request about hillary turned up notable information that was not previously known, then of course its news (even more so if only 2 years had passed rather than 12). the report about the autopsies was highly relevant, and it was not previously known, so its news (even if the msm doesnt treat it as such). its relevant because bush has always maintained that we do not torture, when we clearly do (or clearly did, but there is nothing to suggest that we arent still, though there are things to suggest that we are).

-again, the autopsies were not just people that have died, these were people that had been tortured to death. according to gonzales we are allowed to inflict pain/torment/whatever up until a point, and that is the point at which it constitutes torture. according to those memos, that point is major organ failure, or death. so my point was, even under the new definition of torture, torturing a prisoner to death counts.

leland- continued...(sorry for length)

-white phosphorous
from wikipedia-
"However, in 2005, interviewed by the RAI, Peter Kaiser, spokesman for the UN Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which oversees the CWC, publicly questioned whether the weapon should fall under the convention's provisions: "No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement. If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the Convention legitimate use. If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus... are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."" we used it as a chemical weapon, and there is solid proof of this.

-my last paragraph's point was that conservatives would likely criticize the msm no matter what it did with the story. as i see it, the story really is evidence of how much we have destabilized iraq, and in not reporting on that, the msm has probably helped conservatives. it is a bit of a straw man i suppose, seeing as noone has taken that view, but still a valid point.

The WP controversy is more phoney posturing by Saddam-supporters and other anti-Americans. The legitimacy of any weapon depends on its side effects. Where are the mass civilian casualties in areas surrounding the intended targets? They simply don't exist.

And sure, we've destabilized Saddam's Iraq. We had once destabilized Nazi Germany. I hope we can destabilize North Korea, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_use_in_Iraq

Dept. of Defense spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Barry Venable (who admits we used it as a weapon) is correct when he says WP is not specifically outlawed. as was explained in the earlier quote i posted, it has legitimate uses, however, a weapon is not a legitimate use. it is a chemical weapon. its horrible, and probably illegal. the fact that you are defending its use (even if legal) kind of suggests you have no soul.

people who were against the war are not pro-saddam. our military is limited, we cannot engage in wars of choice, especially when there are other more important wars already being fought. especially when iraq isnt even the most logical war of choice. darfur, for example, is actually in an emergency.

as our military is limited, fighting in iraq means we wont be fighting (or wont be able should the need arise) elsewhere (unless we reinstate the draft). so following from that, does your support of the iraq war mean you are pro-all the other dictators in the world?

and lastly, i agree iraq could in the future turn out well, right now however, it has been disasterous. and i am not too optimistic about the future. basically, we have been arming one faction against the other, while at the same time disenfrachising/alienating the sunnis and not creating any sort of security.

This was not a "war of choice" any more than the U.S. invasion of North Africa had been a choice during WWII. Iraq was reaching the point where it could no longer be contained. We had few other options.

Look back over the reasons al Qaeda gained so much support, and you'll find that situation in Iraq had a lot to do with it. It was one of Bin Laden's rallying points. Those sanctions were not going to remain intact much longer. The bases we used to patrol the no-fly zones were aggravating the Arabs.

Then ask yourself, how do you ever expect to win the War on Terror while Saddam remained in control of Iraq? A lot of regimes need to be changed for the GWoT to end. They don't all need an invasion to accomplish that, but Iraq certainly did.

Beyond all that, it was also important for us to learn who our real friends are.

Yes, our military is stretched thin, but that doesn't mean we will need a draft. That was just a ploy by Democrats to scare their naive base.

Beyond all that, it was also important for us to learn who our real friends are.

did you know uzbekistan was part of the "coalition of the willing"? not only that, but the cia used information they got from the uzbeks that they knew was gained through torture.

and also, do you think saddam's regime was the biggest threat to us? he certainly wasnt an imminent threat. this thread is dead, so i wont argue about this. i think its just a matter of different news sources giving you different facts. saddam had nothing to do with al qaeda getting support. there are lots of countries with stronger ties to terrorism that are currently going unnoticed. also many that were an overall bigger threat to us.

No doubt redeeming his father was on the list of the President’s reasons for going after Saddam. There is also no doubt that Saddam supported international terrorism which is the target of the War on Terrorism that we are in. Our fight with Al Qaeda is a part of the war not the whole thing. It is also true that by attaching Iraq other countries took notice (Libya among others).

ujedujik,

I didn't say Saddam was supporting al Qaeda. (That "imminent threat" line is getting worn out.) I did say Iraq was one of the reasons that people supported them. Bin Laden often talked about the sanctions.

There may have been bigger threats, but there was no better route to victory. As Frank said, this is part of a greater war. And as I said, there is no way we'd ever win that one while Saddam remained in power.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970