New at Reason

Matt Welch wonders why the Pentagon won't share its stash, man.

Comments

thoreau--[secret society name redacted], Class of [year redacted] | March 31, 2005, 4:04pm | #

Harmless hazing rituals are always kept secret. Don't you know that?

Warren | March 31, 2005, 4:09pm | #

They haven't burried the story yet. It still has legs. I'm convinced that it goes all the way to the oval office, and I'm praying everyone involved burns for it.

Donald Rumsfeld | March 31, 2005, 4:15pm | #

There's a perfectly innocent explanation for this.***************************************************** *************************************** ******************************************** ******************************************* ************** and *********************************** pictures ************************* maybe **********************law ************************* Terrorists ************************* not *************************. Probable ********************,********************************** innocent ****************;***************************. In conclusion, ******************************************************* ********************************* national security.**************************.
[Deleted content classified top secret]

Henry | March 31, 2005, 4:18pm | #

Let me just cut and paste my post from today's Gitmo thread, it will be quicker:

"The detainees are towelheads, thus their lives are of no consequence.

That, in a nutshell, is the unvarnished position of the Bush Adminstration, which many Americans share.

Being the new chosen people means never having to say you're sorry."

Donald Rumsfeld | March 31, 2005, 4:18pm | #

I should also add that ************************** and *******************************************. Thank-*** for **** attention to this matter.

[Deleted content classified top secret.]

RandyAyn | March 31, 2005, 7:08pm | #

Could somebody in the know outline the legal steps this might go through, and perhaps give a guess as to whether Jaffer and the ACLU will prevail?

Byna | March 31, 2005, 7:46pm | #

Why do you want to see the pictures?

We know the basic content (horrifying abuse).

Does the severity of the acts shown in the pictures somehow make it more likely that the administration was complicit in the abuse?

Or is this merely an attempt to use the visceral images to get people to respond emotionally and not rationally so that the administration can be tarred and feathered and run out of town?

Byna, justs wants to know your intentions.

thoreau | March 31, 2005, 8:56pm | #

We know the basic content (horrifying abuse).

Some people have maintained that there was no horrifying abuse, that it was all within acceptable bounds. I think it's worthwhile to release the pictures if they disabuse people of that notion.

Why does that matter? Well, some would say that a well-informed public is a good thing.

dhex | March 31, 2005, 10:00pm | #

i'd settle for a restraining order against using terms like "freedom" for the participants.

Oh Come On, Man | March 31, 2005, 11:23pm | #

Oh, come on, man.

"They haven't burried the story yet. It still has legs. [b]I'm convinced that it goes all the way to the oval office, and I'm praying everyone involved burns for it.[/b]"

Somebody's been listening to too much sports-talk radio.

Try this:

"I'm convinced that it WILL GO all the way to the Oval Office..."