Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiShould the US also Suppress Evidence of Civilian Deaths in Afghanistan?
Something that has happened repeatedly in Afghanistan over the last eight years happened yet again this week:
After U.S. Strike, Dispute Over Afghan Deaths
KABUL, Afghanistan - Sharply conflicting reports on an American airstrike this week continued to trickle out Friday from American military and Afghan officials as to whether the attack killed civilians.
The airstrike in Ghor Province in western Afghanistan Tuesday had targeted a local Taliban militant, Mullah Mustafa, but instead killed 10 civilians and 12 insurgents, according to Sayed Iqbal Munib, the governor of Ghor Province.
But American officials Friday said the strike killed up to 16 militants and no civilians.
I obviously don't know what the truth is about this latest incident, but let's assume just for the sake of argument that -- as has been true so many times before -- it is the claim of local Afghan officials, rather than the U.S. military, that is accurate, and Afghan civilians, once again, really were killed by our airstrike.
Using the standard that is now so accepted across the political spectrum in Washington -- information that will inflame anti-American sentiment should be suppressed rather than disclosed so at to not endanger our troops -- isn't it better if we just cover-up, rather than learn the truth about, the civilian deaths we caused in Afghanistan? After all, news reports of dead Afghan women and children at the hands of American bombs obviously inflame anti-American sentiment and Endanger Our Troops at least as much as the disclosure of some additional torture photos would. By the prevailing reasoning of Washington, shouldn't we want our government to hide the truth about what we did -- lest anti-American anger and the risk of attack on Our Troops increase? Isn't that the noble anti-transparency principle we're now endorsing?
The people who are killed by the airstrikes are just as dead. Thus, there's no value in transparency for its own sake. What's the point of our knowing as citizens the truth about what happened and learning the evidence that proves it? All that would do is put our Troops in danger. Here's one argument in favor of releasing the torture photos that the President yesterday vowed he would keep suppressed using every means at his disposal -- even if he loses in court for a third time, this time in the Supreme Court:
Amrit Singh, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union said the photos portrayed abuse in Afghanistan and Iraq in places other than Abu Ghraib prison, the Iraq jail made infamous in 2004 by photographs of abuse there, and would therefore show that abuse was "not aberrational but systemic."
The Bush-defending Right continues to insist, and huge numbers of American continue to believe, that the brutal abuses of Abu Ghraib were isolated and aberrational, the rogue crimes of a few low-level soldiers who were punished. These photos would prove that to be a lie. But no matter. For exactly that reason -- because they would expose the horrible truth of what we actually did -- these photos must be suppressed in the name of containing anti-American anger. Why should that reasoning be confined to suppression of the photos? Shouldn't it extend to information that is far more likely to inflame anti-American hatred, such as what we are really doing in Afghanistan? Isn't it best if the truth is just kept from us and the government suppresses it all so that we don't look bad in the eyes of the world? Isn't that obviously where this mentality leads -- and is already leading?
Along those lines, I'd like to ask you to subject yourself to six minutes of video -- embedded below -- from Bill O'Reilly's show last night, in which O'Reilly, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham jointly praise Barack Obama for suppressing these torture photos, and viciously attack House Democratic leaders as Far Leftist radicals who don't care about the lives of the troops.
On one level, it's worth watching for the pure spectacle of seeing these individuals self-righteously parade around as defenders of the lives of The Troops who desperately want to avoid inflaming anti-American sentiment -- when these are the very same people who sent more than 4,000 American troops to their deaths in Iraq for a completely unnecessary war and, even more so, cheered on policies -- from torture to Guantanamo to the invasion itself -- that, as even General Petraeus, John McCain and numerous other military officials point out, sent anti-American sentiment to the highest levels ever. Now, suddenly, these very same people pretend to be so concerned about the lives of Troops and not doing anything to increase anger towards the U.S.
But even more important, perhaps seeing the arguments in favor of the suppression of these photos come out of the mouths of these individuals, rather than from Obama officials, will enable some people to see how bankrupt, manipulative and incoherent the arguments actually are:
29 Comments so far
Show AllThe U.S. military would never lie about casualties. Our soldiers are, after all, heroes. Every single one. It's a testament to the skill of our soldiers and the perfection of our weapons systems that everyone we blow up is either Taliban or Al-Queada. Even the three year olds.
what do you mean, SHOULD the US suppress...... you mean it DOESN'T!!????
fortunately, however, as shakespeare said,
THE TRUTH WILL OUT.
Isn't that what the Supreme Court said about the selection of Bush: not seating Bush as president would cause him irreparable damage? So, exposing the truth about torture causes those that committed the crimes irreparable harm. And, while we’re at it, wouldn’t exposing the crimes of Wall Street swindlers cause harm to our confidence in our financial system? And wouldn’t exposing the crimes of The Bush Crime Family undermine our confidence in our government? We can’t allow these horrible things to happen.
This is Orwellian New Speak at its best.
Isn't it galling that the very people who sent our troops into harm's way based on lies and fearmongering now purport to defend them by concealing war crimes they supported?
If they had really cared about the men and women in uniform, they'd have kept them safe and sound at home.
And if they care so much, why have they provided such shoddy, inadequate care for the wounded and pressured doctors to falsify records to deny treatment? Why did they send them into an elective war with inadequate protective equipment?
This jingoism, flag waving and crocodile weeping is designed to distract from very ugly truths.
"If they had really cared about the men and women in uniform, they'd have kept them safe and sound at home."
Anyone who really cares about the troops would urge them to quit the military or stand up for their principles like Lt. Ehren Watada.
Democrats Republicans, same shit, different assholes.
"Why should that reasoning be confined to suppression of the photos? Shouldn't it extend to information that is far more likely to inflame anti-American hatred, such as what we are really doing in Afghanistan".
And why should Obama stop there? Why not censor journalism that would inflame anti-American sentiment? Why not ban anti-American speech? Why not ban protests? (actually, I guess the RNC and DNC and the G8 and the IMF already did that last one)
First, the people in Afghanistan, especially in the local area, already know what happened. So the US actions have already inflamed anti-American sentiment. The anti-US gov't actions they want to surpress is here in the US.
Second, Obama was elected on the idea of transparency, but like all US governments before, it is trying to control the message and that includes what gets out.
Perhaps following the rule of law and prosecuting the USA's war criminals would protect the stormtroopers( who should not be abroad anyway),by giving the USA government a slight semblance of legitimacy.
But again the photo suppression is really all about protecting USA war criminals.
Is it not Reid who we have to thank for madman Liebermans election victory?
Would it not be great if the USA joined the ICC and Obama could pay attention to helping the USA populace instead of covering up war crimes?
Perhaps following the rule of law and prosecuting the USA's war criminals would protect the stormtroopers( who should not be abroad anyway),by giving the USA government a slight semblance of legitimacy.
But again the photo suppression is really all about protecting USA war criminals.
Is it not Reid who we have to thank for madman Liebermans election victory?
Would it not be great if the USA joined the ICC and Obama could pay attention to helping the USA populace instead of covering up war crimes?
See if I got this straight:
Years of reporting on our torturing of alleged evil-doers, dozens of books written, scads of investigations launched, tons of reports submitted, secret memos released, bragging confessions by the order-givers...
None of that has endangered our troops or help stir any anti-American hatred...
But if the pictures get out - all holy hell will break loose...?
It's like the stripper pastie laws - completely naked except for nipples, no problem. Completely naked? Illegal. Because if a man sees nipples - all holy hell will break loose!
Glenn Greenwald is fast becoming my favorite writer. Is there anyone out there better at consistently skewering the hypocrisy of the right (and sometimes the left) than Greenwald?
"Is there anyone out there better at consistently skewering the hypocrisy of the right (and sometimes the left) than Greenwald?"
Newbie,
I agree. You are correct when you state he skewers the hypocrisy of both the right and the left. Mr.Greenwald simply calls it as it is. (In most cases)
It is now impossible in the United States to be too cynical about the policies of the government or the criminals and drooling jackasses we elect to run our affairs.
Lily Tomlin: "No matter how cynical I get, I can't keep up."
The U.S. policy on these atrocities seems to be "Who are you gonna believe, us or your own eyes?"
All those trillions spent fighting the "cold war" all those trillions spent and lives lost fighting Fascism were for nothing.
These actions are not to keep the TRUTH from those that sufferred torture at the hands of the USA in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. They already know the truth.
These actions are directed towards the people of the USA.
There was an article recently about a person who survived the Tiananmem square massacre. This incident happened about 20 years ago and he was giving a speech to some young Chinese on the incident.
He was absolutely taken aback when these Chinese students claimed that the incident never occurred and that it was a fabrication of the western media.
THIS is what the Government of the USA works towards. This is how they have operated for 200 some odd years and it is how they both kept and will keep the people in Chains.
This is how Police States operate. They enslave you with lies and myths.
It the very opposite of FREEDOM.
"These actions are not to keep the TRUTH from those that sufferred torture at the hands of the USA in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. They already know the truth. These actions are directed towards the people of the USA."
Precisely correct. As long as the populace can be kept in the dark about what is done in their name they will continue to wave flags and "support the troops" as they did during the Vietnam War. It's like the old phrase "speaking truth to power". It's not the powerful that need to hear the truth, they are already well aware of the truth. It's the powerless who need the truth so they can act accordingly.
or, as a repulsican that i am acquainted with once uttered, during the bush regime: in war there will be casualties, this we know.
No, we don't want gullible taxpayers knowing that their tax dollars go to subsidize the fat profit margins of weapons manufacturers and goes to murder and mutilate women and children.
The image of the Empire might be tarnished and imperial citizens might be forced to see the truth and the truth is not good for business. Better to pretend that the people killed are "Taliban militants" or "linked to Al-Quaeda".
ah, lieberman, the last true bastion of american leadership.
the two reasons we are in afghanistan are to secure a pipeline route and to allow the ongoing cia presence with its direct relationship to drug trafficking.
actually, there are three reasons: the ongoing accumulation of wealth for those who profit from weapons manufacturing and joined at its hip, the milking and bilking of the defense budget.
Jim Shea
Do the American people not have a right to know what OUR government is doing in OUR name at OUR expense? Are we supposed to believe that this is another case where "Don't ask. Don't tell." should apply?
Our debt to Glen Greenwald continues to increase! ! !
It's only when the names and photos of dead civilians are released that anti-military and anti-administration outrage is released.
As long as we allow the suppression of the truth, we are guilty of the war crimes of the American Government.
Vietnam, with all its civilian casualties, was a hidden horror until the late 1960s. When the press and media began to expose the truth, Americans became outraged and the war was wound-down.
When was the last time you saw real coverage of civilian casualties in Iraq - in Afghanistan - in Pakistan. Is there no media in these countries - US or forign?
There should be a concerted effort to expose the truth in all three countries. Until that happens, we are guilty of the same war crimes and cover-up.
Should the US also Suppress Evidence of On Going War Crimes in Afghanistan? Obama has already earned his trip to the Hague. And with his 'surge' in Afghanistan he will cause Pakistan to become unstable and fall and with it India will surely follow. Of what use is a plundered pipeline then?
Here is another take on the same issue from CD:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/06/12-1
It seems to me that transparency is - or is not - transparent. The moment one starts to make exceptions to the rule, one has undercut their credibility. Such is the case with torture photos. With regards un-manned drones and covert operations in Pakistan, the independent news sources provided eye witness accounts of dead non combatants: women and children. I've seen the coverage on BBC of the cameraman panning the scene of dead bodies. A Greek philosopher once noted that the first tragedy of war is the truth. Offering skeptical claims that covert activities are false or a figment of our collective imagination, or that non combatants are not being claimed, is just more misplaced obfuscations.
anyone know a reliable source for the NAMES and ages/stories (and photos would be especially good) of afghan civilian casualties? (for an art project)
you could start here, email the editors and ask:
http://www.onlinenewspapers.com/afgan.htm
most of the real info will be in pashto, though. my guess is the english language papers will be, well, of a certian slant...
good luck.
I'll bet the affected Afghans and Iraqis and Pakistanis ALREADY KNOW who's rendering them widows, orphans, and friendless folk. Too, they're figuring out ways to kill Americans and make them go home, as other patriotic Iraqis, Afghans, and Pakistanis do. Any of those people who do NOT try to kill Americans are, well, un-American, failing to protect their homelands. How wimpy.