CountDown: Jameel Jaffer of ACLU, "We're not looking for the release of everything."

[vaberella]

:wtf:

So there is far more that we don't know about. The ACLU is looking for the release of a few of the pictures...or that was what I interpreted from the statement. If that's the case, how much is being hidden. I'm not in support of the pictures released as of yet and stand by the President's decision.

However, when Mr. Jaffer said this, it caught my attention that even the ACLU seems to determining what should be released and what shouldn't be. Huh....and I'm curious to find out what they are.

Did anyone else see/hear that come out of Jaffer?

Vabby

[Cant trust em]

1. I'll give you a dollar if you get rid of that Tweety picture.

Whenever I see your posts I feel like it just dominates my screen. :)

[vaberella]

2. Never...Unless, you choose my next signature then I'll change it. n/t

[Cant trust em]

4. I dig the sig. It reminds me of when I was canvassing for Obama in Wisconsin.

When a woman told me that she worked hard for Kerry on 04, but she isn't going to vote for Obama. I ask her why not. She says that she saw Whoopi Goldberg on the View and she used the N-word. Now those black people, they can use the n-word, but we can't. So I'm not going to vote for Obama.

As for the picture, I scroll down a thread that you've posted on several times and all I see is Matthews, Matthews, Matthews!

[NYC_SKP]

3. Hadn't you heard?

The ACLU is the boss of you, they know better than you, I, or the president of the United States. :sarcasm:

I find it interesting that, for all their "release the photos now" drama, it now seems that they just want certain ones. :shrug:

Don't get me wrong, I love the work they do, but sometimes they go a little over the line, then they pull back.

I'm glad we have them, but they are not the final word of wisdom.

:patriot:

[vaberella]

5. Exactly. It was something I noted when he made that statement.

I was wondering if they want the American people to know this and that and yet...not all of "this and that." It seemed a bit disingenuous. No one on the board seems to be commenting much about it. Or they haven't heard it yet. I don't think many will even pay attention to it. But I definitely saw and heard what was said.

I wonder if people who were so self-righteous will now calm down.

[NYC_SKP]

7. To your last pondering..

"I wonder if people who were so self-righteous will now calm down."

I say,

:rofl:

[seaglass]

8. It's not new news for people who have been following this. Read

the brief, the original FOIA request was in 2003 before the Abu Ghraib photos came out, over time and through appeals more info trickled out from the media and the government. The ACLU is right, Obama is wrong.

http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/legaldocuments/Brief_Appellees090706.pdf

"...After Plaintiffs sought clarification regarding other detainee abuse images
withheld by the government on the grounds of FOIA Exemptions 6, 7(C) and 7(F),
it confirmed that it was withholding an additional twenty-nine images on those
grounds. On April 10, 2006, the district court ordered an expedited procedure for
resolving any remaining issues regarding the release of the twenty-nine images
under FOIA. JA 411-415. That court also ordered that all other images withheld by the government under FOIA Exemptions 6, 7(C) and 7(F) would be governed by the final ruling on appeal with respect to the twenty-nine images"

...On June 9, 2006, after ex parte and in camera review of the twenty-nine
images, the district court ordered the government to release twenty of the twentynine
images, and on June 21, 2006, ordered release of another one of those twentynine
images.

...In a letter dated June 29, 2006, the government informed Plaintiffs that the
Defense Department is withholding approximately twenty-three other images of
detainees pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 6, 7(C) and/or 7(F), the release of which,
under the district court’s April 10, 2006 order, would be governed by any final
order concerning release of the twenty-one images that are the subject of this
appeal"

[vaberella]

9. I don't get your point, and I don't think you understand mine.

I'm pointing out the fact that the ACLU is now taking a position to dictate what I or WE need to see and what we don't need to see. They don't want the release of ALL the photos. So this is where my problem lies.

If Obama does the same thing and uses the soldiers as his crutch. It's not fine. However, the ACLU has also it's own agenda and is not looking on full disclosure, or I should say, transparency. And there in lies my problem.

[seaglass]

12. Prove it.

To make it clearer, prove that it is the case that they don't want the release of all the photos not that they didn't ASK for release of all the photos.

[vaberella]

13. Link Below or post #12:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#31193143

It's towards the end, I believe. It's about 7 minutes in when he says that he's not asking for everything. However, they are together and I thought we were all about context---meaning we need transparency---ie everything would have to be possible.

[seaglass]

14. No, I mean do your research and back up your statements,

at minimum post a transcript or quotes of exactly what was said. It's on you.

[vaberella]

15. Huh? Why should I post a transcript when I gave a link to the video?

It's the video I was talking about in reference to the statement. It's on the net and clearly able to be accessed and I have to take the time out to write it in detail. Huh? What quotes did I copy. I stated only one thing Jameel Jaffer stated...end of story. And it was something I picked. The rest of it is my thinking based on his statement in the video.

I don't know how many ways to explain that.

If the fight is for everything. Then give me everything----but in the video he clearly says he's giving some thing but we'll hide other things. That was the impression I was given and I stated it was the impression I was given.

[seaglass]

19. Maybe if you had a transcript you would have known they weren't talking about the torture photos!

Geez, were you in the middle of making dinner when you watched this? They were talking about transcripts from the destroyed CIA tapes of interrogations.

The ACLU was stating that they weren't asking for the Q&A portion, they were asking for the portions of the transcripts that dealt with the techniques that were being used.

Is it your position that there should never be a concern for national security? Just open the floodgates and let it all out? The ACLU does employ lawyers you know, they are well versed on what the government can claim as legitimate national security concerns (i.e. what is within the law) and what they cannot. Clearly in the case of the torture photos, the government cannot legitimately suppress them on national security grounds, since they have lost 2 appeals and are now resorting to a retroactive law to prevent their release in addition to bringing the case to the USSC.


If your position is that there are never any national security concerns, I could see why you would characterize the ACLU as "disingenuous" as having "it's own agenda" which is not looking on "full disclosure" or "transparency." But of course you would have to say the same of Obama.

[vaberella]

6. Kick. n/t

[slipslidingaway]

10. Link to what was said would help, but seaglass already posted

about the original FOIA for certain material.

[vaberella]

11. I stated it was on CountDown today. Whatever, link below:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#31193143

It's 7 minutes into it and he makes clear he's not asking for everything to be released. However, they lay claim that they want transparency and everything to be released. At this point I don't know what they want. And lastly...I figured we were people who cared about context. What type of person are we to take a transcript or any other information and not the whole story. We already know there is torture, but the statements in the transcripts may not actually be as cut and dry or black and white as we assume.

And he stated that he didn't want the release of everything. Meaning there are things that could remain shut.

[slipslidingaway]

16. The ACLU are now the bad guys because they only sought partial

information and they ran on a campaign of transparency and now they want to dictate what you can and cannot see/read.

:crazy:

But thanks for the link.

[vaberella]

18. Uh, did I say they were the bad guys. I never did.

I'm just showing that they are also doing what Obama is doing. By your reading that I think the ACLU is the bad is also stating that I think Obama is the bad guy. I'm actually using the method and reasoning of the ACLU to show that Obama is not the bad guy in not releasing the photos---yet. That's my only point.

I'm noticing that people just want to read what they want into my post. But I have not changed my argument since the beginning. I'm just clearly pointing out that the ACLU does not want the release of ALL the information like so many have claimed and that Obama is in the wrong. Well if the ACLU is also prohibiting things why is the ACLU in the right but Obama is in the wrong?!

That was my only question in understanding the double standard. If that's too hard to get, then...whatever.

[slipslidingaway]

22. No double standard...whatever. nt

[AtomicKitten]

17. The ACLU want a different set of pictures than the 2,000 or so that Junior kept secret.

They pertain to a specific case. Jaffer seems to indicate they'd be satisfied with less. :shrug:

President Obama is between FOIA and the military/families begging him to withhold photographic evidence, and Obama came down on the side of the latter. Once he exhausts the legal challenges, then we'll see what he does.

I think a great compromise would be to appoint an independent prosecutor/panel to have a looksie in the course of a full-on investigation (and prosecution). That's a win-win for everyone IMO.

[seaglass]

20. kicking so the OP has a chance to gain some credibility. n/t

[slipslidingaway]

21. I meant to check the transcript yesterday... Jameel Jaffer

was speaking about more than just the pictures.

:)


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3917997&mesg_id=3917997

"ACLU Files Lawsuit Seeking Disclosure of Still-Secret Torture Documents

The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a lawsuit seeking the disclosure of still-secret records relating to the torture of prisoners held by the U.S. overseas. The requested documents include legal memos authored by John Yoo and Steven Bradbury, who were lawyers in the Bush administration Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), as well as documents sent by the Bush White House to the CIA. The government has failed to turn over the documents in response to a December 2008 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

"The information already in the public domain makes clear that the torture policies were devised and developed at the highest levels of the Bush administration, but there are still unanswered questions about precisely what the policies permitted, how they were implemented and who specifically signed off on them," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. "This lawsuit is an effort to fill some of the gaps in the narrative."

- snip -

"We can't sweep the abuses of the last eight years under the rug," said Alex Abdo, a legal fellow with the ACLU National Security Project. "Restoring the rule of law and the moral authority of the United States requires us to confront the abuses of the Bush administration, recognize the victims of that administration's torture policies and hold accountable the officials who put unlawful policies in place."

The records sought in today's lawsuit include:


documents between the White House and CIA concerning the use of the CIA's so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques;"

a legal memorandum or letter dated July 22, 2002 from Yoo to Alberto R. Gonzales regarding the applicability of the Convention Against Torture; and

a 2007 opinion by Bradbury analyzing the legality of the interrogation techniques authorized for use in the CIA program under Common Article 3, the Detainee Treatment Act and the War Crimes Act."