Community | November 30, 2009 | 41 comments

Supreme Court Votes to Hide the Truth

Image
Progresshiv
The post-Constitutional Supreme Court has voted to cover up the truth about abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. They will undoubtedly be just as interested in protecting your human rights.
  1. groups:
    Community,   Afghanistan News
  2. tags:
    Iraq Photos Afghanistan Torture 4 more
  3.     
    |

41 comments // Supreme Court Votes to Hide the Truth

  • Incredulous
    • 0
      Incredulous  
    • Change we can believe in....NOT!

      and how is it that cupcakes in the form of the periodic table is a feature story and this is not? WTF?

    • 2 years ago
  • WhiteNoise
  • Kaotik
    • 0
      Kaotik  
    • This is not news, it was going to happen. Please do not act all surprise, America takes what it wants, when it wants.

    • 2 years ago
  • magyver68
  • Daubview
    • 0
      Daubview  
    • The Government, especially in developed, first world countries, has become a monster that controls every aspect of people's lives. It also taxes them to starvation and poverty so it can procure the next best technological advances in military technology, to take the same people it taxes to war, so they can all go die for the security of a nation/government which enslaves them, then lie to them at every opportunity it finds. What a joke, how do people carry on voting?
      Less government + less taxes = more freedoms

    • 2 years ago
  • Fujistics
    • 0
      Fujistics  
    • Governmental tactics remains predictable! Hide the relevant until it becomes irrelevant so nothing becomes of it. Afraid of the backlash they attempt to incinerate their trash. What Gulf of Tonkin? What WMD? Bunch of lies to get the peoples' approval upon entry.

    • 2 years ago
  • JonRaymond
  • shanklinmike
  • Vierotchka
  • wayseeker
    • 0
      wayseeker  
    • Vierotcha - I was thinking people want to satisfy their morbid curiosity and for some that's true but now I realize that if we hadn't been shown pictures of the holocaust victims we would have never fully understood the horror of it. So now I think you're right.

    • 2 years ago
  • nanac
    • 0
      nanac  
    • The majority of Justices that sit on the Supreme Court are Conservatives, and they always lean to the Right...This is not a credible Court, because they are anti poor, anti minority, anti labor, anti Liberal and strictly big business....They lost all credibility when they gave Bush the 2000 Election...The barbaric and sadistic behavior of Bush and his thugs, should not be hidden from the World...

    • 2 years ago
  • Vierotchka
    • 0
      Vierotchka  
    • Of course it has - it consists in majority of rabid Republicans nominated by Republican presidents and approved by a Republican majority. That's what Republicans do.

    • 2 years ago
  • wayseeker
    • 0
      wayseeker  
    • Isn't releasing the pictures too the media about the same as publishing pictures of a gory murder scene complete with the body? Isn't a verbal description of the crimes adequate?

    • 2 years ago
  • Vierotchka
  • EdJoyProductions
    • 0
      EdJoyProductions  
    • I think that hiding the pictures makes us look as if we are not acknowledging what happened. What we let happen. What seemed to be standard operational procedure. Releasing the pictures will hopefully insure that it doesn't happen again and that we as a country take responsibility.

      Seeing those pictures strikes at the soul of most viewers. They never forget the images and most people would do whatever they could to prevent it from happening again. Keeping them secret is like pretending it did not happen and I think that is worse in the eyes of the people that we offended.

    • 2 years ago
  • Thhines
    • 0
      Thhines  
    • I think its right to hide the pictures. Who needs to see them, give our country another black eye internationally as we are trying to turn the corner from that. I think its the right decision and will help us in the short, and long term. We all know what happened, we don't need pictures.

    • 2 years ago
  • cynker
  • JonRaymond
  • coffeemusician
  • Thhines
    • 0
      Thhines  
    • Thhines:

      We have had a black eye for eight years. This country was hated by everyone, and no one would do business with us. Its time to move on, if these pictures got released, it will only fuel more anger and frustration and be used at a recruiting tool, against us. Now, we can think about the long term events, or we can think about the people in this country who will just look at it for a day and forget about it. There is no reason to release the photos, it doesn't go against any of our rights, and it wont harm any of our rights in the future.

    • 2 years ago
  • QuestionGeek
    • 0
      QuestionGeek  
    • I think it's a little bit to late for that isn't it? Isn't the truth already out?

      They were sexually humiliated (forced homosexual acts among other things) by sick sexual sadists, smeared with mud and shit "pastes", burned, electrocuted, force contortioned, prodded, raped (gender didn't matter) , semi-crushed, forced to fuck themselves with bananas, suffocated, shot with rubber bullets till their buttocks bled, murdered and packed in ice, tortured with attack dogs, etc...

      Kudos and Thanks to the internet, it's quite difficult to hide the truth these days...

      Our Supreme Court needs to get over themselves. I am thoroughly convinced they are not a real court, especially since they put that lame brain numb skull in the oval office that we had previously. I don't even want to mention his name

      It would be much better for the United States if the information was released. Denial does nothing to help us in this instance.
      _________________________________________

      I have to say I really love current.com's site design. User friendly formatting and easy to read, navigate...

    • 2 years ago
  • jubal
    • 0
      jubal  
    • QuestionGeek:

      Don't forget about sodomizing the interrogated people's children in front of them, to make them give up information. That is the most inhuman of all the things I have read about being done.

    • 2 years ago
  • QuestionGeek
  • opit
    • 0
      opit  
    • Almost as much as saving their own asses from being killed : anybody not covered by Congress' 'Do Not Enforce Our Laws' edict of 2002 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Servicemembers'_Protection_Act is theoretically subject to rules established by the US at Nuremberg. They are scary enough German generals subject to the same international agreement are bugging out of Afghanistan because Germany has a history of actually enforcing its laws these days.

    • 2 years ago
  • CalgarC
  • ibrake4rappers13
    • 0
      ibrake4rappers13  
    • Great picture.

      Jubal i vehemently disagree, i believe the bible is completely relevant to todays society, without God in our nation we wouldnt be able to have the religous freedoms we have now. secular societies are known to be the most repressive on religous freedoms and usually have a state religion forcing people to attend.

    • 2 years ago
  • Thhines
  • magnusdeus
    • 0
      magnusdeus  
    • ibrake4rappers13:

      Anti-religious secularism has historically fueled fundamentalist movements, but I don't know how you could possibly make a case that religious societies encourage religious freedom.

      Seems to me a neutral society that doesn't oppose or promote religion makes the most sense.

    • 2 years ago
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • Vierotchka
    • 0
      Vierotchka  
    • ibrake4rappers13:

      You obviously don't understand what a secular society is. No secular society imposes any kind of religion. There are no state religions in secular societies, and nobody is forced to attend any church whatsoever. The happiest and most prosperous societies in the world are the secular ones.

    • 2 years ago
  • CreditFigaro
    • 0
      CreditFigaro  
    • ibrake4rappers13:

      "secularism is a religion as well"

      WRONG.

      Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

      Secularism: secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.

      By definition you are flat out wrong. It is an irrelevant point to begin with, anyhow.

    • 2 years ago
  • ibrake4rappers13
    • 0
      ibrake4rappers13  
    • ibrake4rappers13:

      It is not only the communist or former communist countries which engage in the secular repression of religion.Turkey, a secular state which purports to guarantee freedom of conscience, aggressively promotes secularism, favoring secular views over religion and controlling all aspects of religious practice

      Secular states run the risk of preferring nonreligion over religion or of establishing a religion of secularism

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

    • 2 years ago
  • CreditFigaro
  • magnusdeus
    • 0
      magnusdeus  
    • ibrake4rappers13:

      It'd probably be better if the state promote secularism than religion if you had to choose though, don't you think? Judging from the uproar from the uneducated Christian folk about Obama's *secret* Islamic faith, it doesn't seem like anyone's too keen on our politicians being religious at all, unless it's their own religion of course.

    • 2 years ago
  • freecrack
    • 0
      freecrack  
    • alot of the pressure to supress these pics was from the iraqi govt for fear of the pics enciting already hostile muslums to increase sectarian violence

    • 2 years ago
  • QuestionGeek
    • 0
      QuestionGeek  
    • freecrack:

      Oh puhleeez, the world already knows what we did, back when SOME of the pictures were released in 2003. What's the difference if they release additional photos??? The Surpreme Court just doesn't want the USA citizens hating its government anymore than they already do right now, that's why they won't release them..

      Those idiots at Guantanamo obviously had heard too much gunfire with no ear protection. They never thought anyone would ever get a hold of the first sets of pictures.

    • 2 years ago
  • jubal
  • CreditFigaro
  • EdJoyProductions
  • QuestionGeek
  • KSirys
    • 0
      KSirys  
    • wow.... i wonder how much george "AWOL" bush paid to get this done? Or maybe daddy asked for the favor... nothing new when our so called "justice" system is bought by the powerful and wealthy.

    • 2 years ago
more from Community:

top videos