Blogs and Stories
Torture: Update and Correction
John Moore / AP Photo
Update and correction: Since my story on torture photos 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 lawsuit and reviewed by President Obama do not contain sexually explicit images. I regret my errors.
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 under way, 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.
• There 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
Click here for Scott Horton's post from Friday.
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.
Bringing Down Bachmann
Benjamin Sarlin is a reporter for The Daily Beast. He previously covered New York City politics for The New York Sun and has worked for talkingpointsmemo.com.
America's Hot Jobs (and Not Jobs)
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
Nicolas Cage, Compulsive Spender
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
Sonia Scores a KO
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.
Torture Prosecution Turnaround?
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.
Where Iran's Regime Learned Its Tricks
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.
It was clear that http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444
were new Abu Ghraib Abuse Photos which were released February 15, 2006 by Australia's Special Broadcasting Service TV, but a lot of people never saw them.
And this link was self evident, by name, that is why it was so long, and the space had to be deleted.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/leaked-torture-photos-published-in-2006-went -largely-unseen-graphic.html
If the 44 that not being released are not as bad as these that were not widely published in 2006, then I think Obama has made a huge mistake because these pictures now have a wider audience than they did before, regardless of the ones we haven't seen, the ones we have seen are disturbing.
Now that Horton has been proved a liar -- and not for the first time is my guess -- why not just drop this story no one but the Hate America crowd and low-life journalists profit from?
Now that Banjo has been proved a torture-worshipping hate-monger with no credibility and even less intellect, and not for the first time is my guess, why not just give up defending what his holy highness Gen. David Petreaus now says is 1) a series of violations of the Geneva Conventions and 2) warrants a truth commission, and Gen. Sanchez, one of the individuals directly guilty of ordering these crimes, now supports a truth commission.
Is it getting lonely in Ignorance-land banjo?
He did not lie, he corrected his mistake. More than Bush and Cheney appear to be doing. They don't even try to be correcting their mistakes. Even Mr. Clinton said if he could do it over again he may have passed more regulation on derivatives. Lying implies you do not admit making an error, in this case Mr. Horton does admit to making an error.
We need to soothe the anger, and one way is to admit when wrong, because we are human and make mistakes.
And possibly your anger, Banjo1, may have to do with being made by mistake making you still feel like an unwanted child. That could be a reason why you set your self up to sound like one. I am guessing of course.
And if it hadn't been for the rukus related to the "milder" 44 ones, these ones may have gone unnoticed, which is possibly why the claim that God works in mysterious ways, is often the only truth that we can rely on.
What value does your half-apology have for spreading false rumors? The damage to the reputation of the United States has already happened as a result of your shoddy journalism. The terrorists will be citing your lies as a justification for killing innocents. Can you carry that on your conscience? Can the editors of the Daily Beast do that? And yet, they still publish your lies and give you a forum.
For shame!
As the previous poster noted, it brought attention to the previously overlooked photos that the Pentagon's media succesfully suppressed till now.
If its a lie and the 44 photos are 'innocuous', what's the big deal?
You know why it matters Mr. mikeoutwest, because it is the tax payer who is paying for this, and needs to know that his and her money is not being used to flaunt international law. The pictures as far as I can see, are being used no so much to torture, but to destroy the minds of these people, and regardless if revenge feels good, it is not legal, and the 44 pictures might be a smoking gun to a potential law suit, which might be way they are not being released.
Of course speculation happens out of frustration.
I meant: and the 44 pictures might be a smoking gun to a potential law suit, which might be the real REASON they are not being released. If they are not as bad as the ones that were released, and not widely published, then why aren't these ones being released. It is our right to know.
Or more correctly without the tax payer paying for this, these events could not happen. It is public money that is funding these activities, that is why it matters.
If it was private money doing these horrible things, there would be no excuses, the culprits, including the funders would be facing criminal proceedings and even the call to 911 would be made public.
The people in those pictures are real people, I am not sure what they did or were accused of doing, but they might not recover from the abuse they endured, and possibly the pictures taken of them, was possibly meant to destroy the person's sense of self, because it ads to the humiliation.
Who paid you off, Horton? I'd love to read that story!
That was profound!
I think people who like the daily beast, and like that it at least tries to be subjective (despite nicole wallace and tucker carlson) should really try to get some of these commenters banned. If you go to check out crooksandliars.com you can hear from our friend tankertodd who is celebrating the death of that abortion doctor. Real class.
Starting with Banjo?
Atrocities of this kind always come out, sooner or later. It is both morally right and politically more rewarding to admit them, apologise for them, take speedy action to avoid any repetitions and, if reasons of state do not prevent it (as in the unspeakable Cheyney's case), prosecute those who violated the law. I suspect that President Obama's instincts are to do just that, but there are still those in the Army and Government who think that suppression will allow the matter to somehow disappear.
That is exactly the mistake by some British Members of Parliament in fighting to avoid details of their expenses being made public. The result has been far worse for them than a free disclosure many months ago.
Btw, I'm not in favour of banning any commenter, although we could all do without obscenities and insults. You have free speech in your country. I wish we did in mine. Besides, the lunatics usually condemn themselves out of their own mouths.
Great points,Gorb-limey! I would add that the confusion over the nature of these photos would decrease and the credibility of the U.S. government would increase if the pictures were released. Those identified military perpetrators should then be immediately charged with the crimes they've committed.
To string this out is stupid. To use General Petraeus' analogy, the untreated "boil" will lead to gangrene.
We need to know why there is so much anger, and maybe validate people's concerns, on the other side. Maybe if we stopped being so adversarial, we would be able to share common ground without blowing it up.
This war is hurting everyone. Who ever did these things possibly shouldn't be returned to the society, even if their intention was to protect it.
Carmegeddon was bound to happen, if the price of oil was going to push so many into financial ruin, this is sort of what happened in the 70's.
[The cliché "All is fair in love and war"[3] [4] finds justification for lies used to gain advantage in these situations. Sun Tzu declared that "All warfare is based on deception." Machiavelli advised the Prince "never to attempt to win by force what can be won by deception," and Thomas Hobbes wrote in Leviathan: "In war, force and fraud are the two cardinal virtues."] excerpted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie.
[Lying is typically used to refer to deceptions in oral or written communication. Other forms of deception, such as disguises or forgeries, are generally not considered lies, though the underlying intent may be the same. However, even a true statement can be considered a lie if the person making that statement is doing so to deceive. In this situation, it is the intent of being untruthful rather than the truthfulness of the statement itself that is considered.] excerpted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie.
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.
Please log in to leave comments.