Blogs and Stories

Scott  Horton

The Bogus Torture Coverup

BS Top - Horton Torture Photos Jim MacMillan / AP Photo Update and correction: Since this story posted Friday, Salon has accurately pointed out that the sexually explicit photographs focused on in my story were first published by Salon in 2006, and that all the Salon photographs have in fact been released by the government. The 44 photos subject to the ACLU law suit and reviewed by President Obama do not contain sexually explicit images.

But the story is far from over. Indeed, a senior Pentagon official involved in the ACLU litigation tells me that the 44 photographs in question are not the end of the controversy, stating that an internal process of review was still underway, reconsidering photographs that “may previously have been miscategorized.” The source declined to comment on the additional photographs. In addition, the official confirmed that:

There are a “substantial number” of unreleased photographs, past the 44 in question, potentially subject to the ACLU’s request. It remains to be seen what they are and what is in them.

Obama’s May 14 decision not to release these 44 photographs, after personally reviewing them, was a stall tactic: he intends to release them eventually, even if he prevails in court, once the situation on the ground improves.

The was a split between the top Centcom commanders, with General David Patraeus speaking in favor of release (specifically, “let’s lance this boil”), and General Raymond Ordierno coming out against, arguing that it could make a dangerous situation more dangerous.

The administration’s pushback on the disclosure story seems aimed to shift the focus of attention entirely to the group of 44 photographs which have taken a prominent role in this specific litigation. This is justifiable to the extent that the discussion turns on Obama’s personal decision not to release specific photographs, but not in the broader context of disclosure. Pressed to characterize the 44 photographs, a Pentagon official told me “these photographs, while disturbing enough, are relatively inconsequential compared to those which were already released in 2004 and 2006.” If so, why not release them?

Click Image Below to View a Gallery of Some Rarely Seen Abu Ghraib Torture Photos

Article Page - Torture Gallery

Original story below:

The Daily Beast has confirmed that the photographs of abuses at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison, which President Obama, in a reversal, decided not to release, depict sexually explicit acts, including a uniformed soldier receiving oral sex from a female prisoner, a government contractor engaged in an act of sodomy with a male prisoner and scenes of forced masturbation, forced exhibition, and penetration involving phosphorous sticks and brooms.

These descriptions come on the heels of a British report yesterday about the photographs that contained some of these revelations—and whose credibility was questioned by the Pentagon as well as the British newspaper's source, who claims he was misunderstood.

The Daily Beast has obtained specific corroboration of the British account, which appeared in the London Daily Telegraph, from several reliable sources, including a highly credible senior military officer with firsthand knowledge, who provided even more detail about the graphic photographs that have been withheld from the public by the Obama administration.

A senior military officer familiar with the photos told me that they would likely provoke a storm of outrage if released. The well-informed source confirmed, just as reported in the Telegraph, that many of the photographs are sexually explicit, including those mentioned above. The photographs differ from those already officially released. Some show U.S. personnel engaged in sexual acts with prisoners and each other. In one, a female prisoner appears to have been forced to expose her breasts to be photographed. In another, a prisoner is suspended naked upside down from the top bunk of a bed in a stress position.

The Telegraph article quoted retired Major General Antonio Taguba, who directed the official inquiry in 2004 into the abuses at Abu Ghraib. Taguba told the Telegraph that the “pictures show torture, abuse, rape, and every indecency.” The Telegraph reported: “At least one picture shows an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner while another is said to show a male translator raping a male detainee. Further photographs are said to depict sexual assaults on prisoners with objects including a truncheon, wire, and a phosphorescent tube. Another apparently shows a female prisoner having her clothing forcibly removed to expose her breasts.”

In response to the Telegraph account, Bryan G. Whitman, a deputy assistant secretary of Defense, attacked the newspaper. “That news organization has completely mischaracterized the images," he said. “None of the photos in question depict the images that are described in that article.” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, later in the day, widened the assault to a general one against British journalism. “If I wanted to read a writeup today of how Manchester United fared last night in the Champions League Cup, I might open up a British newspaper,” Gibbs said. “If I was looking for something that bordered on truthful news, I'm not entirely sure it'd be in the first pack of clips I'd pick up.”

The photographs differ from those already officially released. Some show U.S. personnel engaged in sexual acts with prisoners and each other. In one, a female prisoner appears to have been forced to expose her breasts to be photographed.

In one withheld photograph, not previously described, Specialist Charles A. Graner, Jr., an Abu Ghraib guard, is shown suturing the face of a prisoner, a reliable source tells The Daily Beast. The suturing appeared to serve no ostensible medical purpose than perhaps Graner’s attempts to humiliate or terrorize the prisoner, the source suggested. Graner was court-martialed and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment in 2005 for charges that included prisoner abuse. A number of the withheld photographs, according to reliable sources, show Graner engaged in sexual acts with Specialist Lynndie A. England, another soldier assigned to duty at Abu Ghraib. She appears in some of the most notorious photographs disclosed so far, including one in which she walked a detainee on a leash—enacting a regimen later revealed as an authorized technique known as “walking the dog.”

Other suppressed photographs show a female prisoner assuming sexually suggestive poses in a chair, while a prison guard appears behind her in some frames. In another series, prisoners are shown hooded in a transport with open copies of pornographic magazines in their laps.

Still other withheld photographs have been circulating among U.S. soldiers who served in Iraq. One soldier showed them to me, including a photograph in which a male in a U.S. military uniform receives oral sex from a female prisoner.

The Obama administration’s decision to challenge the Telegraph account presents a dilemma because many of the photographs have already been leaked, and they match the very images that Taguba described and which Pentagon spokesman Whitman denied. The already leaked photographs can be seen at the Web sites of Salon.com, the Sydney Morning Herald of Australia, the Australian Broacasting Corp. Dateline program, and the Spanish newspaper El Mundo.

The suppressed photographs and videos are the subject of a Freedom of Information Act litigation brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU prevailed against government claims of secrecy both in the federal district court and in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. (Full disclosure: I supplied a legal expert’s opinion on the Geneva Conventions, which was cited by both courts in reaching their conclusions.) Yesterday, the Justice Department filed papers asking the court to reconsider its decision directing that the photographs be made public. In its papers, the Justice Department suggested it would seek to have the matter reviewed in the Supreme Court if its motion were to be denied.

The immediate pushback against the Telegraph story from the Pentagon, coupled with the decision of White House press secretary Gibbs to chime in, suggests the sensitivity of the issue. The full-scale strike against the Telegraph, the leading conservative quality newspaper in Britain, broadened into an offensive against the whole of British journalism, suggesting the precariousness of the public-relations effort.

The Pentagon spokesperson, Bryan G. Whitman, who came to prominence during the Bush administration, has drawn on standard operating procedures honed during the Rumsfeld era. Instead of offering correction of supposed factual inaccuracies, he has slammed the credibility of the publication itself. Yet his statement is both sweeping and extremely vague, and the claim that none of the photos reflect the descriptions in the article is immediately belied by an examination of the photos that have already been leaked.

Whitman has used this sort of bludgeoning attack on news organizations before. Ask Michael Isikoff at Newsweek. When Newsweek’s April 30, 2005, issue ran a brief Periscope piece referring to an internal report’s description of an incident in which a Quran was thrown down a toilet, Whitman launched a dramatic attack on the publication, pressuring it to retract and apologize. The report had, it later turned out, been correct. In 2007, the ACLU secured, through a Freedom of Information Act request, a copy of a 2002 FBI report which documented a prisoner’s charge that his Quran has been thrown in the toilet; five other cases of mishandling Qurans were reported, although the Pentagon insisted that none of them amounted to desecration.

The most prominent victim in the past of Whitman’s disinformation may have been none other than Barack Obama. On the campaign trail, in Austin, Texas, candidate Obama said he had gotten a message from an Army captain in Iraq who described how his unit had been shorted in munitions and equipment. I learned from reporters that Whitman started a whispering campaign with the Pentagon press corps telling them (not for attribution) that he didn’t believe Obama’s claims were true. Whitman’s game, however, was stopped by ABC reporter Jake Tapper, who tracked down the captain, interviewed him and fully verified the account.

Bryan Whitman remains on the job in the Pentagon today. But the effort to suppress the shocking photographs is already failing, as they leak to the public and reliable sources verify their authenticity. A senior military officer told me that in the months before the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, Pentagon officials engaged in strange maneuvers to avoiding viewing the pictures. That, he noted, didn’t make the photos any less real. But it apparently made it easier for Pentagon officials to dissemble about them. That process hasn’t stopped.

Scott Horton is a law professor and writer on legal and national-security affairs for Harper's magazine and The American Lawyer, among other publications.


View as Multiple Pages
Back to Top
May 29, 2009 | 6:43am
Comments ()
Redhead5050

Sickening...sad and sickening...this information must be confirmed one way or the other. This perverse dribbling of information is as degrading and damaging as it would be to release the photos and deal with it.

|
|
Reply
|
7:07 am, May 29, 2009
oliverckerr

The people behind the abuse are fascists.

|
|
Reply
|
10:28 am, May 29, 2009
lovelylife

Can we not call them fascists? I assume you mean to liken them to the Nazi's in WWII - in which case you should use the word "Nazis". Fascism is a political ideology where you put the state above your individuality, where the state has the most importance. Italy was the first Fascist state in WWII, and while they were on the losing side, they weren't as bad as the Nazis. While I agree that the torturers are disgusting and horrible, I wouldn't call them Fascists.

[sorry... history nut.]

|
2:05 pm, May 29, 2009
bobhall

You mean Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. Releasing the photos will have the effect of discrediting Cheney and his vile daughter at a time when they are promoting "enhanced interrogation". Won't do much in the battle for the hearts and minds of Muslims, though.

|
7:00 am, May 30, 2009
mintvagoo

Abu Ghraib abuse photos 'show rape'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5395830/Abu-G hraib-abuse-photos-show-rape.html
Hersh: Children sodomized at Abu Ghraib, on tape
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/07/15/hersh/index.html?sourc e=refresh
Sy Hersh : Children Sodomized at Abu Ghraib as Mothers Watched
http://theragblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/sy-hersh-children-sodomized-at-ab u.html
Scahill reports US tortures detainees with germ warfare and gasoline enemas. Semper Fi?
http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/5297

from AsianAfricanAMERICAN comment
already released. WARNING: VERY VERY graphic pictures, you have been warned.
http://www.aztlan.net/iraqi_women_raped.htm

|
|
Reply
|
2:38 pm, May 29, 2009
exploora

The iraqi_women_raped pic might be a fake.

|
2:21 am, May 30, 2009
exploora

Fake Rape Photos Re-Emerge Again To Discredit Real Torture Scandal
29 May 2009 ... Paul Joseph Watson | Staged images proven to be lifted from amateur porn websites five years ago poison the well and distract from ...
www.infowars.com/fake-rape-photos-re-emerge-again-to-discredit-real-tort ure-scandal/

|
3:08 am, May 30, 2009
exploora


[Calling Americans "barbaric wild beasts" who are "born in brothels," likely Arab propagandists have sent a group of "rape" photographs - including some WND uncovered as fake images taken from a pornographic website - to an Australian TV program.

Staff of the program, called "Media Watch," contacted WND yesterday to get help identifying the photos, which the senders claim depict U.S. servicemen raping Iraqi women. WorldNetDaily was able to confirm that all eight "rape" photos were taken from the same pornographic site previously identified, "Sex In War." The site contains thousands of photographs in addition to video. ] excerpted from http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38566

|
3:26 am, May 30, 2009

This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.

|
5:34 am, Jun 1, 2009
scough

Terrorists can't be raped and sodomized enough for me, as long as my life goes on blissfully.

|
|
Reply
|
6:59 pm, May 29, 2009
roger37

Keep telling yourself that when you go to church every Sunday. Christian forgiveness, indeed.

|
2:08 pm, Jun 1, 2009

This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.

|
|
Reply
8:00 am, May 30, 2009
jimgnos

Re: lovelylife's comments about fascism. You are correct in your definition, though incomplete. You omitted mention of the fascist alignment with a corporatist segmentation of society.

|
|
Reply
2:18 pm, May 30, 2009
Banjo1

Yes, I totally agree. The 95 percent or more of American soldiers whose only stain is they are defending us from pitiless terrorists should be subjected to revenge for the acts committed by a foul handful who have already been punished. Publishing the photos will serve that purpose. And I think we should spit on the soldiers and call them baby killers when they come home. It was good enough for the Vietnam vets; why not this lot? The moral preening of the left can turn even a cast iron stomach.

|
|
Reply
|
7:49 am, May 29, 2009
Progressive2

What did Iraqis did to us Banjo1 to be raped/abuse/tortured?
You're sick.

|
|
Reply
|
8:16 am, May 29, 2009

This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.

|
9:53 am, May 29, 2009
losrobbins

This stuff is all over the Internet, to the point it's difficult to tell which photos are real and which are fabrications. (I have Photoshop; you can make anything look like anything.) Al Qaida's going to use it no matter what; Obama's got to come clean and say, "It happened. It won't happen, again." (BTW, Sastro3 [below] says that "the abusers have...been arrested." Not so sure about that. Would like to hear more on who's been held accountable.)

|
10:38 am, May 29, 2009

This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.

|
10:52 am, May 29, 2009
scott1607

At this point I don't think more damage could be done. The idea that these photos exist are enough to fuel more outrage and put our troops in danger. Imagining what these photos look like is just as bad the reality and is providing enough ammunition for more hatred as it is... maybe we should just release them and get it over with. Publish them, acknowledge that it was horrific and deal with it.

|
11:31 am, May 29, 2009
Ritarita

Come on Daily Beast
We're grown-ups.
Stop the censorship already.

|
6:30 pm, May 29, 2009
Meadester

Banjo1 never said the Iraqis deserved to be raped, abused, or tortured. He said that those carrying out those acts are a small minority of U.S. troops who have already been punished. Even if he's wrong about all of the guilty ones being punished, he is right about the majority being innocent. And as such we should not be giving the Islamofascists propaganda that they will use to justify killing more American troops or civilians. (Not that we can stop
them from fabricating photos).

Just so you know, I stopped supporting the Iraq war when I found out the WMDs were a myth. I would like to see the U.S. leave as soon as it's possible to do so without making the situation worse. But in the mean time I don't want to make the job harder for our protectors who had nothing to do with the politics of the war. Also, even if we did pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, the threat of Islamic fanatic terrorism would not go away. I don't support the PATRIOT Act, or other overzealous "security" measures but that doesn't mean that we should help the terrorists.

|
2:33 pm, May 31, 2009
Genni2002

Yes.. Do tell us, Banjo1, what sexual molestation has to do with obtaining vital information that can help us?

|
|
Reply
|
8:46 am, May 29, 2009
Banjo1

Nothing. POW! The straw man lies all in a heap. Gimme another to knock down! I'm fit as a fiddle and feelin' strong.

|
10:07 am, May 29, 2009
Ritarita

Rut-roh.
Banjo's started up
The meth lab in the
Shed again.

|
11:05 am, May 29, 2009
socialworklady

Ritarita,

Now
that
is
funny!

|
4:20 pm, May 29, 2009
baptox

More likely
Banjo's makin' moonshine
still he shouldn't drink
and type.

|
2:33 am, May 31, 2009
jarussell

lol @ banjo
What percentage of the Iraqi people do you reckon were "pitiless terrorists"? Give us a number......50% 30%? Share your wisdom with us banjo......

Oh yea, NONE of the Iraqis were connected the 9/11 attacks, that's right. You have no argument for the treatment these people received, yet you continue to defend what the US did and is still doing to Iraq.

You need to be reminded over and over and over that WE invaded THEIR country based on false information spread by the Bush administration. Even if it was thought to be true at the time, for God's sake, we should have stopped when we found out. Stopped when it was shown that Iraq had NO connection to 9/11. Stopped when the allegations first came out that we were abusing these people in prison.

And now, when responsible journalists are reporting about what is involved in the remaining pictures, you continue to defend them and say that somehow we and our soldiers will be harmed by these images. In your defense however, you do pull out the Viet Nam Vets card, even though it's 35 years old. Is this your idea of how America works?

|
|
Reply
|
10:22 am, May 29, 2009
GM2009

They hate banjo's freedom

|
10:49 am, May 29, 2009
Banjo1

I think I understand your point: War is bad. Bush Lied People Died. US Go Home. Hey, hey, LBJ . . . etc.

The problem with this kind of soft-headed 60s poster-on-the-wall sloganeering is it is not worthy of a second glance let alone an argument.

|
10:51 am, May 29, 2009
pulmanomancer

If you pay attention to what Banjo1 was saying, it was not that the acts were justified, but that nothing is gained and much is lost by releasing the photographs. It is clear what is lost by showing the pictures: stoking worldwide outrage against the US. What do you think is gained?

|
11:03 am, May 29, 2009
jarussell

OK.....

GM2009
If you equate freedom with stupidity, then yes, I hate it.

banjo
I'm a lifelong Republican. Your casual dismissal of an argument you can't win is indicative of your rationale and your IQ. For someone who recalls the 60s and uses the terminology, you must be past 50 years old, but you argue and debate like a 6 year old. I know, I have one. He makes more sense than you.

pulmanomancer
I've been paying attention to, for a while, the shit that banjo has been spewing. He attempts to justify everything that we did in the misguided foreign policy of the previous eight years as righteous and correct. Do you really think that the truth about our actions will outrage anyone MORE than our past behavior already has?
If you paid attention to what I've been saying, then you'd know that what is gained is respect; both from within and abroad. The rest of the world now has access to knowledge as to everything that happens. Continuing to lie, to hide, and to spin is just stupid. The pictures are already out, and what our government denies happened has already been proven to indeed be true.

Also to be gained is trust. Trust in our leaders and our way of life. The way of life that says we are different and better than those that do these things to other people that are under their control. Trust that when we make mistakes, we man up and say, "We made a mistake. We were wrong. We will work to better ourselves and try not to make these mistakes again."

Also to be gained is bravery. Torture, in my opinion, comes from a deep fear of the unknown. From a place so petrified and frozen with fear that we use any means possible to avoid what it is we're afraid of.
Are we a country that is strong, or weak? Strong enough to say to the rest of the world, especially those that use terror, that we will fight to the last citizen to rebuff your advances, but we will not , NOT cross that line that separates us from you? Think about it; are you willing to become them to stop them?

Freedom is not free.

|
11:40 am, May 29, 2009
ktappe

@pulmanomancer: It is obvious what is gained by releasing the photos. Releasing them will outrage the public to the point where the military will take steps to ensure this never happens again. If you bury them, the military has no incentive to put such safeguards in place. It's rather well-established that letting criminals get away with crime encourages them to offend again. (It's disheartening that I even had to explain this, given how basic it is....)

|
12:05 am, May 30, 2009
GM2009

There is only black and white in torture-defending right-wing universe. Ever heard of the concept known as justice?

|
|
Reply
10:48 am, May 29, 2009
felixsama

"A foul handful' are not responsible for a thousand or more photographs! And if a few bad apples are convicted, good. Let's go after the rest and their commanders. Maybe in my lifetime the credibility of our country will be returned. Withholding these photos is just making Obama look like the tool he very probably is. Indeed the collective imagination of the world will probably do us more damage than acknowledging and punishing ALL of the parties could begin to do. Let's start at the top instead of the bottom. And then get our asses back where we belong- at home. And not doing video-remote war either. I wonder if the suicide rate for those 'soldiers' (who drop bombs from Kansas or wherever) is comparable to those who have to see the children they've killed. Like the world, I doubt these people are without imaginations- just mislead (at best) or conscienceless. Welcome to the future- cowards and bullies take your shots, before we turn this wonderful planet over to the roaches..........(and Banjo1).

|
|
Reply
|
2:00 pm, May 29, 2009
marcyj

Felixama

Can you imagine being President Obama, sitting in his office viewing these photos ( and probably getting sick to his stomach)? Then having to decide if it would be best to show the photos to the rest of the world, thereby demostrating what monsters we are, and prosecuting every one of those fucks, top to bottom OR as President of this great country having a dilema in his own mind if its better to sit on them, in an attempt to protect us from the monumental fuckups of Bush and Co. in the eyes of the world.

I would not want to have to make that decision. You must understand that he walked into this mess. I do not think Obama is a tool, and I voted for Nader.

|
4:57 pm, May 29, 2009
Progressive2

Will the neocons defend rape now? Yes
Why? because morals and laws means nothing to their leader Dick Cheney whom aproved it.

|
|
Reply
|
8:00 am, May 29, 2009
Banjo1

Progressive 2

How did you do on reading comprehension tests before they kicked you out of school?

|
|
Reply
|
8:30 am, May 29, 2009
xbainx

Banjo1 would break after you shut off his internet. He'd tell you every secret he knows. What I am saying is Banjo1 is a coward who has never seen combat, and so is irrelevant to the discussion.

|
5:28 pm, May 30, 2009
Hawnzz

Banjo said exactly what we expected him to say. The moral relativity here is amazing and sad. And yes they will indeed defend rape and the rest of it.

|
|
Reply
|
8:52 am, May 29, 2009
Banjo1

Hawnzz

You must have gone to the same school as Progressive2 and got tossed out as soon.

|
10:03 am, May 29, 2009
Hawnzz

Banjo,

Pathetic....

|
6:12 am, May 31, 2009
muddog

Banjo finds the pictures erotic....Rest assured if Banjo were there he would have participated in the "Acts". Yet another sexually repressed hyper Conservative finding pleasure in Rape and Torture of others.

We wonder why the Arab world htaes us?. Just look @ the above pictures. Sick stuff.

Go ARMY.....

|
|
Reply
|
1:44 pm, May 29, 2009
Banjo1

It amazes me how often the left veers into disquisitions about repressed homosexuality. It's clear that below the surface they have a lot of hatred for gays and think nothing could be worse than being one. The gay lefties assume anyone critical of their agenda has to be not only (a) homosexual but (b) self loathing. Strange.

|
2:21 pm, May 29, 2009
muddog

Banjo1. You are not simply criticle, you obsess over gay issues. The vast majority of your threads ALWAYS have some gay theme.

Banjo you dont have the guts to show your REAL you in peron so you troll on websites and write your blather.

Yes it's quite obvious the left hates Gays by progressing gay causes like marriage,
equal rights,
civil rights etc.
Yes the left HATES gays, got it.....

Banjo, please tell us why you obsess over same sex issues?.

A few closeted gay bashing Conservatives like yourself.

Ted Haggart. ( Meth snorting / hooker addict )
Larry Craig. ( I have a wide stance )
Banjo1. ( One can only guess )
James Dobson.
Matt Drudge. ( Duh )
Ralph Reed. ( Duh )







|
4:13 pm, May 29, 2009
marcyj

Yeah, us progressives hate homosexuals so much we fought our asses off for Prop 8. You have a really warped prospective.

|
5:18 pm, May 29, 2009
poobah

It may not be sexual repression, but there is some trauma involved with toilet training for sure.

|
9:30 pm, May 29, 2009
pattyann1

This discussion of the demeaning and degrading of prisoners in US custody is sensationalizing and harmful to our military in harm's way. The photographs should be handled through proper legal and military channels....the safety of our troop trumps the publics' right to know. Progressive or conservative should be in agreement on this...Tina Brown should take a stand as an American and take this smut off this site!

|
|
Reply
|
8:02 am, May 29, 2009
knowbuddhau

OK, so it's the discussion to which you object, not the barbarity of the actions taken in our name? How'd they get placed in harm's way to begin with?

Could it be that the actions, not the evidence thereof, are the problem? What if we didn't torture, demean, or degrade detainees? What if we hadn't committed the supreme crime of aggressive war? How 'bout we end the criminal enterprise, instead of trying to hide its horrific face?

Shorter pattyann1:

Yes, dear Big Daddy gov't, please keep me safe in my nursery world, where we always are the good guys and the good guys always win. Please don't present me with facts I cannot face.

|
|
Reply
9:52 am, May 29, 2009
GM2009

Yeah, good thing the 'enemy' hasn't got an innernets account or they might find out. The pictures are outed. it is confirmed from multiple sources.
Lindsey graham 2004: "The American public needs to understand, we're talking about rape and murder here," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), telling reporters in 2004 why the Abu Ghraib photos should not be released as former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld faced calls for his resignation. "We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience. We're talking about rape and murder and some very serious charges."

|
|
Reply
10:53 am, May 29, 2009

This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.

|
|
Reply
|
11:58 am, May 29, 2009
Ritarita

Come on Daily Beast
This censorship thing is
Getting ridiculous.

|
4:06 pm, May 29, 2009

This user is no longer registered.

|
|
Reply
5:53 pm, May 29, 2009
Globalarchangel

The puzzle is how to bring the perpetrators to justice without making the pictures public in an open trial . Presumably evidential rules apply in military court and the pictures must be shown and admitted into evidence.

|
|
Reply
|
8:16 am, May 29, 2009
Hawnzz

That is indeed the question.

|
|
Reply
8:53 am, May 29, 2009

This user is no longer registered.

|
|
Reply
11:56 am, May 30, 2009
LucyVisconte

Are all of the pictures you saw from the previously released images on Salon et al, or are they new? Because there are also fake pictures that have been circulating that have been debunked as originating on a porn site, such as one depicting a woman being forced to perform oral sex.

|
|
Reply
8:31 am, May 29, 2009
Banjo1

The perpetrators have been brought to justice and are taking their meals in prison at present. Keep up with the news.

|
|
Reply
|
8:41 am, May 29, 2009
Hawnzz

Who set the precedent?

|
|
Reply
9:23 am, May 29, 2009

This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.

|
|
Reply
|
12:17 pm, May 29, 2009
Ritarita

Come on Daily Beast
We're grown-ups.
Stop the censorship already.

|
5:04 pm, May 29, 2009

This user is no longer registered.

|
8:49 pm, May 29, 2009
muddog

No the perpetrators ARE NOT in jail. Cheney and Rumefeld still walking the streets.

|
|
Reply
|
1:45 pm, May 29, 2009

This user is no longer registered.

|
11:53 am, May 30, 2009
citivas

How do you you know?

There has been no confirmation that the soldiers and contractors depicted in the pictures are the same as those previously convicted.

|
|
Reply
3:54 pm, May 29, 2009
mpbruss

The photos that were set to be released were not simply from Abu Ghraib. They were from Afghanistan and other parts of Iraq. Graner & England were prosecuted for what they did at Abu Ghraib, but considering a good portion of these photos were taken elsewhere and presumably involve other servicemen and women, it is inaccurate to claim that the perpetrators have been brought to justice.

|
|
Reply
4:06 pm, May 29, 2009
Aaronthethird

Covering up these photos is what is exacerbating the problem. If the pentagon and the White House had just come out and said, "Yes there are photos depicting sexual and physical abuse but they are of a sensitive nature so we are not releasing them to the public," this story would not exist. But because they are trying to hide the information, journalists are making these images public to bring the truth to light. Stop attacking journalists for doing what they should be doing, which is holding our public officials accountable; if anyone is to blame for "putting our soldiers in harms way" (as if they are all safe right now) it is the administration of our government for trying to cover up evidence of terrible acts.

|
|
Reply
|
8:41 am, May 29, 2009
Genni2002

Sounds about right and one would think that any reasonable person serving in the military would also be repulsed by these terrible acts and want to bring the perpetrators to justice.

|
|
Reply
|
3:09 am, May 30, 2009
baptox

Absolutely! By trying to suppress these photos and hide the truly ugly nature of what occurred, the Obama administration is actually making things worse, both for the public and for American troops.

Obama should hold a press conference, apologize to the world for what transpired, promise that the military personnel who perpetrated these acts will be brought to justice, and promise that it will not happen again.

Suppression of the truth never works. The more horrible an atrocity, the more light that needs to be shone on it. Did we learn nothing from the death camps of the Nazi's and Vietnam?

|
2:49 am, May 31, 2009
Bellabear

Aaronthethird: You are exactly right. If the administration would have just been truthful instead of "lying" about the photographs there would be no story. When are they going to learn... Polititicians should be required to take a class on ethics before entering office.

|
|
Reply
4:04 am, May 30, 2009
andyi99

With all due respect, does anyone remember the last time a Pentagon spokesman or a spokesman from the Dept. of Defense, on the record, has told the truth or admitted a mistake? About the same number of times George Bush has...

|
|
Reply
8:56 am, May 29, 2009
knowbuddhau

Bravo, o brother my Brother. This is the most exciting potential of the Web (to me): busting myths, loaded with malign intent, even as propagandists deploy them.

With 27,000 "influence operators," a $4.7 billion budget, and the corporate media's obsequiousness (with a few notable exceptions), I wonder: what other attempts to jack our shared narrative are under way?

I'm still stunned by your 11 Feb 09 article in Harper's.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pentagon Targeted and Mistreated Journalists, AP Head Charges
http://harpers.org/archive/2009/02/hbc-90004359

The Associated Press's special report on Pentagon "influence operations" can be read here [ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29039384/ ]. The Pentagon's Public Affairs Office has been one of the last redoubts of the Neoconservatives. Burrowed Bush era figures remain in key positions in the office, which had responsibility for implementation of some of the Rumsfeld Pentagon's most controversial strategies in which

***the American public was targeted with practices previously associated with battlefield psy-ops.***
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Doesn't that constitute our own military
firing on us? Are the influence operators any different than snipers? And the infamous "Message Force Multipliers"?

A) Hide intentions;
B) Fire "live" rounds at target audiences with high-power microphones etc. with the intention of forcing a change in behavior against the will of the target;
C) Make career-advancing killings.

Or we could see it as the attempt to hack into the psyches of Americans as if we were mere voting-machines on two legs.

My fellow psychologists have weaponized psyche itself, and the DoD has turned against us.

To our NSA-type fiends, with bodies to hide all over the world, are we, the sovereign citizens, now the enemy?

|
|
Reply
|
9:41 am, May 29, 2009

This user is no longer registered.

|
|
Reply
|
12:13 pm, May 29, 2009
knowbuddhau

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29060453/

There's a slight difference there at the end. Thanks for pointing it out, I've been habitually posting that dead link for months now.

The actual report is proving more elusive than I expected. Prof. Horton, a little help?

See also
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/05/pentagon-boosts-spending_n_1644 10.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/pentagon-propaganda

|
9:37 pm, May 29, 2009
riall1

Disgusting is such a weak word to be used to describe such activities. These solders, under the leadership of people like cheny and bush, have been reduced to sub-human level of existence. I really don't know how they can live with themselves. In addition to the personal horror that this story displays, this is something that all of western civilization will have to live with for hundreds of years. How can you convince people that we in the west are civilized when we do things like this?

This story also demonstrates what is going to happen if Obama does not immediately release these photos and arrest the perpetrators of these horrible acts. That is stories such as this and rumours (some true some false) will dribble out and keep this in the face of Muslims for an extended period of time. While I agree we need to move on, we also need to show the world that we are at least one rung up the ladder from animals by at the least demonstrating that we punish those who among us are animals. That means everyone who is responsible...from the individual solder to cheny and bush!!!!

|
|
Reply
|
9:47 am, May 29, 2009
GM2009

I agree. Anyone reasonable suspicion of complicity for any reason, at all levels, should be subject to a full criminal investigation.
The Nuremburg defence doesn't wash.

|
|
Reply
|
11:00 am, May 29, 2009
felixsama

WTF are you saying?

|
2:17 pm, May 29, 2009
LitaMarieH

felixsama: I think GM2009 means:

Any reasonable suspicion of complicity (no matter what) should be subjec to a full criminal investigation.

|
3:34 pm, May 29, 2009

This user is no longer registered.

|
|
Reply
|
10:21 am, May 29, 2009
GM2009

Who each released identical talking points. Go back and compare the two statements. Worded exactly alike with a little extra word-smithing by Gibbs.
They are in a corner now. The Daily Telegraph, the New Yorker, the UK Guardian, Lindsey Graham, The New Yorker, gen. Anthony Taguba and now the Beast.

If Gibbs wanted to know the soccer score he might check one of these sources but if sought some credible information he'd probably turn on the Pentagon Channel.

|
|
Reply
|
11:04 am, May 29, 2009

This user is no longer registered.

|
12:06 pm, May 29, 2009
checkmoot

I guess Banjo1 still thinks the 9/11 hi jackers were Iraqis. As the Iraqis were not involved in 9/11 and were not terrorists, the reason they were tortured and abused could only have been for the amusement of the abusers. Some fun. Sick puppies.

|
|
Reply
|
10:31 am, May 29, 2009
GM2009

Banjo: Yes, 19 gay Iraqi highjackers armed with WMDs

|
|
Reply
|
11:29 am, May 29, 2009
Ritarita

GM that's funny.

|
12:25 pm, May 29, 2009
Banjo1

GM don't believe her.

|
2:26 pm, May 29, 2009

This user is no longer registered.

|
|
Reply
11:55 am, May 30, 2009
Boeing777Driver

Thank God for this country's free press. Bush/Cheney tried for 8 years to create a closed society like China, Iran, and North Korea so their terrible acts against innocents could remain hidden. Now that they are out of power our press is discovering and exposing their indefensable actions. They NEVER wanted Osama Bin Laden. They never looked for him. They captured these detainees and tortured them hoping to create a connection between the 911 attacks and Iraq. When they couldn't find one, they made one up and began the war on Iraq. We are the most powerful country in the world and if Bush/Cheney really wanted Bin Laden, we could have found him. I believe we know where he is and we are helping to protect him. He was a friend to our country in the 80's and Bush/Cheney just didn't want to bring him to justice. Plain and simple. If torture really worked we would have Bin Laden and never would have gone into Iraq. Hussein was a terrible person but we have never openly engaged in the killing of Heads of States anywhere in the world and there was no threat reason to the US to attack Iraq and have 5000 US soldiers killed there and many more maimed and ruined for life. Obama inherited a terrible mess. He is doing a very good job. Before anyone attacks me, I am an ex Air Force pilot and flew in GW I. I speak from experience, not rhetoric.

|
|
Reply
|
10:35 am, May 29, 2009
GM2009

You are right, they never sought Bin Laden.
Check out the Youtube posting: Zero-A 9/11 Investigation, Italian made documentary (in English).

Even a hardened skeptic will have problems refuting the verifiable facts there.

|
|
Reply
2:25 pm, May 29, 2009
Bellabear

oh of course, Osama Bin Laden was release from FBI's most wanted list in 2005... but "we're fightin' terrorism!"

|
|
Reply
4:08 am, May 30, 2009
drfadhel

Banjo1, you voted the people who condoned these crimes into office and you are defiantly not ashamed of it and would probably do it again, so you subscribe to the same sub-human morality clan.. Aliases Nazis, KKK, Neocons etc..
If the troops committed it, expose it, prosecute the guilty, and come clean so that it would not happen again. We need to send a signal to the world that our military does and will not tolerate these acts of barbarism. This, on the contrary, will restore and strengthen faith in our military and earn us respect from the rest of the world

|
|
Reply
|
10:36 am, May 29, 2009
pulmanomancer

These are the same folks who have already been prosecuted; what precisely is gained by bringing all of this up again?

|
|
Reply
|
11:04 am, May 29, 2009
felixsama

The point is to expose it, if it's systemic or 'the few bad apples' (Ha Ha) STORY.

|
2:20 pm, May 29, 2009

This user is no longer registered.

|
11:56 am, May 30, 2009
Boeing777Driver

At least Banjo1 is sticking to the Republican textbook. If you can't form an educated rebuttal to a challenge, just insult the challenger. Banjo1 couldn't defend his position so he insulted the education of those opposing him. Sound familiar? That's all you hear from the Grand Old Guard. I mean the Grand Old Party. They are the poorest losers I have ever seen in my 42 years.

|
|
Reply
|
10:45 am, May 29, 2009

This user is no longer registered.

|
|
Reply
2:30 pm, May 29, 2009
spinozareader

Boeing777
Ain't it the truth!
Banjo1's rebuttal style is right out of The 6th-Grade Bully's Playbook.
Rule 1: Call everything you fear stupid, ugly, or queer.

|
|
Reply
|
9:28 am, May 30, 2009
Hawnzz

The problem is that doesn't not work on those that can actually make a rational argument.

|
6:16 am, May 31, 2009
msn04061960

It just goes to show that criminals whether they be military or civilian are stupid. Not all our troops are criminals, so why would should the government release those photos? The perpetrators are being punished as should be done. What more would anybody want? The government releasing those photos would be like the terrorists releasing the phots and videos of the beheadings of their prisoners.

|
|
Reply
|
10:59 am, May 29, 2009
jus1drun

the fog of this conversation creates the opportunity for unreasonable conclusions. if the photos are abu ghraib why bother outing the photos, people have already been convicted. if not a g then the plot thickens. yet why not investigate ourselves, after all we have a new party in control, seems we ought to be able to trust in their unwavering interest in sticking it to the previous administration. still don't see the point in inflaming arab emotions.

|
|
Reply
11:43 am, May 29, 2009
GM2009

Might as well release before they are leaked. Step up Obama.
Looks really bad if he conceals and they appear in spite of it.

"The government releasing those photos would be like the terrorists releasing the phots and videos of the beheadings of their prisoners."

Which has ben done repeatedly.

|
|
Reply
|
7:03 pm, May 29, 2009
AbbieHoffman2

GM2009 - This is the horns of the dilemma that Barack is facing. He cant authorize the release of these horrible photos. I bet he's waiting for the power of the net to do this job for him. He is no dummy.

and will all of you stop equating whacking off heads to whacking off?
(beheading=horrible) (sexual abuse=less horrible)

|
8:56 am, May 30, 2009
Genni2002

This issue has been going on for a long time and the main reason for everything is 911 which we all know (and talked about here) was NOT caused by Iraq. With all this disagreement, at the end of the day, the evidence needs to be put forward and we should be able to judge it. Isn't the military a public entity paid for by our tax dollars? The president may be the commander in chief. He works for us! This is America.

|
|
Reply
3:17 am, May 30, 2009
larry278

It's a lead pipe cinch that some, if not all, of the damning photos will be leaked, circulated & printed sooner or later, probably very soon. How will the USA & Pres Obama spin the event? Is there a way to spin a photo of an American sodomizing a captive?
It will be necessary to up-grade Ms England's discharge from the Army to "...under honorable conditions..." & compensate her for her time in prison; she should get a rating of 100% disabled due to service connected conditions from the VA.
The sentences of other soldiers convicted of prisoner abuse in Iraq must be reviewed when the US torturing captives photos become public.
Repairing leaks is difficult & expensive. One must do it at once to avoid more severe damage.

|
|
Reply
11:13 am, May 29, 2009
muddog

To bad all the Conservatives who are sudenly SOOOOOOO concerned about our troops did not apply the same logic to their safety when we invaded Iraq in the 1st place....When the Bush admin did not send troops abroad with adequate armor, when the Bush admin sent them over in un armored Humvee's, when the Bush Admin blew it when not expecting insurgents, I could go on...

The entire Iraq invasion has been a debacle from the onset, this is just another sad chapter in a pathetic foriegn policy decision that will haunt us for decades.

|
|
Reply
|
11:29 am, May 29, 2009
Ritarita

To say nothing
Of their underfunded return
And the scandals in the
Veteran's Administration
And at Walter Reed.
To their credit though
They support the troops
In a big way when
It comes to magnets
And stickers.

|
|
Reply
|
12:36 pm, May 29, 2009
Banjo1

Crocodile tears from the left about the troops is enough to bring on a serious episode of projectile vomiting. STAND BACK!

|
2:29 pm, May 29, 2009
baptox

Actually, Banjo, isn't projectile vomiting what you've been doing in all of your posts?

|
3:03 am, May 31, 2009
Plantagenet

If the Obama administration won't prosecute
the prior administration for its coverup
then the next administration will prosecute
the Obama administration for its coverup

|
|
Reply
12:18 pm, May 29, 2009
marieburns

It appears to me the Administration & Pentagon are playing "where's the photo?" Their denials are constructed to refer only to the "2,000 or so" photos the President "was gonna" release. The photos Horton & Taguba have seen would be found in the "never gonna" tab.

The Constant Weader at www.RealityChex.com

|
|
Reply
|
12:33 pm, May 29, 2009
Uberjeff

It makes me wonder if the current Administration really has seen all of the photos? Gibbs and Obama haven't set much of a precedent for openly lying yet. Perhaps the vestigial Bushies in the Petagon and DoD purged them or kept them hidden somehow.

|
|
Reply
5:02 pm, May 29, 2009
madams12

to redhead et al....this all HAS been examined and vetted years ago (2004) when 2 star General Anthony Taguba produced his lengthy investigatory report on the abuses of Abu Ghraib..and for which he was fired...telling the TRUTH was never welcomed in the Bush/Cheney regime and apparently truth telling now wiht Obama crew is getting more treacherous. There were all sorts of violence perpetrated physically and sexually on children and women and filmed which the General reported on...now the task to release or not has fallen Obama. Though I stand up for open govt in this case, where so many were HUMILIATED and TORTURED I do NOT think that release of these documents, videos, photos etc is beneficial or wise. BUT I DO think that the PRESIDENT OUGHT to tell the American people and the world the character of what is depicted in those horrible visual records of inhumane and abusive treatment which these grunts were obviously instructed to carry out...every GI KNOWS to follow Geneva Convention protocols...so a HIGHER authority had to have made such brutality a 'lawful order'. RUMMY and company are war criminals..when are the American people going to DEMAND Inquiry and prosecution?

|
|
Reply
12:44 pm, May 29, 2009
MoonHowler

I looked at these photos. If these acts were committed on Americans by Mexican prison guards, there would be a huge backlash by the conservatives against Mexico, even more than there is now against imigration. Yet these abuses were done by Americans.

To deny this and try and hide these is just wrong. These photos are going to be published around the world and all over America anyway, now that they have been leaked. To fight back and try and hide them and attack the publications which have investigated them only makes us look foolish and like we are engaged in a cover up (which we are) in addition to being cruel. Not willing to investigate these and air our laundry will look like just one more crime.

Getting back to the analogy, how would Americans react if Mexico tried to cover up, lie to us, and fail to investigate these attrocities if they happened in their prisons? Why should we expect the world to react any differently?

Finally, let me say that I do not believe Mexico HAS done any Attrocities against us, or we would have heard. It would have leaked out. As ours did.

|
|
Reply
|
1:33 pm, May 29, 2009
baptox

If Obama had learned the lessons of the civil rights' movement in the South or the My Lai Massacre , he would see the futility and absurdity of trying to suppress that which is documented.

I understand he inherited this mess and it's very early in his administration to have to confront this, but denial of the facts in the long run is much worse than confronting the reality and dealing with it in the short run. In the interim, his credibility, and that of our country, can be irreparably damaged.

This is a real test of Obama's character and very revealing of his true character, or lack thereof.

|
|
Reply
3:16 am, May 31, 2009

This user is no longer registered.

|
|
Reply
|
1:37 pm, May 29, 2009
Hawnzz

"gay, incompetent, drunken, drug-snorting, failure"

Don't insult gays, drunks, druggies or failures by lumping them in with Bush... that is just mean.

|
|
Reply
6:18 am, May 31, 2009
neo0071

the only way to make America whole again would be 2 lock up Bush,Cheyney, Rumsfield and the rest for allowing this such Eviil behavior. I am disgusted , "WE WANT CHANGE NOW"

|
|
Reply
1:46 pm, May 29, 2009
Leave a Comment
Leave a comment

Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.

View Comments
Leave a comment

Please log in to leave comments.

The Bogus Torture Coverup

by Scott Horton

Info
RSS
Scott  Horton
Emails
|
print
Multiple Pages
|
text
-
+
Facebook
 | 
Twitter
 | 
Digg
 |