Don’t assume what the prisoner photos would show

Sometimes people jump to conclusions not in evidence.

Take my column today as an example. A couple of commenters and letter writers assumed that my call for release of the photos of Afghan and Iraqi prisoners was so that our interrogators might be revealed to be engaged in abuse and/or torture. I never said that.

Since I’ve not seen the photos, I cannot judge. That’s the point.

Many people jumped to the conclusion when the Abu Ghraib photos were released that the naked and bound prisoners were under interrogation. Frankly, they looked more like bored guards engaged in frat house hazing.

One letter writer accused me of taking “a position that pictures that damage our national security should be released to the public. As if the government has no right to withhold any information from the public on the grounds of national security. The pictures would serve no useful purpose, except to give salacious pleasure to people who like to look at that sort of thing, and to our enemies, to further their efforts to incite violence and hatred toward America, and its troops in harm's way.”

Would they? Perhaps they would prove that the treatment is not so bad after all. Certainly less abusive than beheading, as is favored by some of those being questioned.

“Your position is specious,” the writer continues, “because there is a national security interest that must be protected.  I don't trust the government as much as the next guy, but I don't see a reason to show such pictures. In court, pictures are routinely excluded from evidence on the grounds that they are prejudicial and would inflame feelings not productive to the matter at hand.”

They also tell those who are in charge, the citizens, how their government is carrying out their charges.

There are abuses that can be swept under the rug by the claim of national security, not all aimed at our enemies, but rather at keeping our own people in the dark.