Obama and Congress Are Right to Block Release of Photos That Major General Taguba Now Confirms Show Rape and Sexual Abuse
The UK Telegraph reports that more information has emerged in regards to the detainee abuse photos that President Obama has prevented from being released to the public:
Photographs of alleged prisoner abuse which Barack Obama is attempting to censor include images of apparent rape and sexual abuse, it has emerged. 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. Detail of the content emerged from Major General Antonio Taguba, the former army officer who conducted an inquiry into the Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq. Allegations of rape and abuse were included in his 2004 report but the fact there were photographs was never revealed. He has now confirmed their existence in an interview with the Daily Telegraph.
*****
Maj Gen Taguba, who retired in January 2007, said he supported the President's decision, adding: "These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency.
"I am not sure what purpose their release would serve other than a legal one and the consequence would be to imperil our troops, the only protectors of our foreign policy, when we most need them, and British troops who are trying to build security in Afghanistan.
"The mere description of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it."
I'm willing to take his word for it. There is no reason why images of rape and sexual abuse should be made available to the general public. These images have already been used as evidence in over 60 investigations into the individuals responsible for the abuse of detainees, so it's not like they haven't been made available to the proper authorities. Let them be viewed in a court of law, but keep them out of the hands of the torture-porn voyeurs and the websites that cater to them.
.
And every day people go around TV murmur the blather that "We Don't Torture". We will propose Preventive Detention for dangerous people, because we are right, and we're humane and we're protecting the world, the world's policeman.
Imagine a Congressman caught in sick and depraved acts - "Oh no, we don't want to see, it would have a dangerous effect on the public". Imagine a priest caught abusing dozens of children - "Oh no, can't release those pictures, it would damage people's belief in God".
Shaming is an established step on the road to recovery. If the Germans went through it for much worse, we can handle it for this. Release the pictures. No one's going to believe it otherwise. We're Americans, we don'and t do that stuff. We just have Memorial Day picnics and celebrate the glories of War and Young Empire.
May 28, 2009 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cosign.
May 28, 2009 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe it. I know some won't, but those that won't believe it would probably somehow avoid seeing the pictures or make excuses for them anyhow. We have descriptions of what the photos contain.
I KNOW everyone takes a big stinky poo now and again, but I really don't have to watch a video of it for it to sink in.
May 28, 2009 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
But let's ALWAYS show not only photos but also VIDEOS of war crimes when committed by OTHERS than US, such as those regularly run about WW II Germany.
THAT'S the humane double-standard we MUST maintain at all costs -- even to our credibility.
And we MUST NOT release the photos because there are "holocaust deniers" who won't believe them.
May 29, 2009 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I get your point, but I think you need to pick another analogy. Releasing pictures of a priest abusing children would be incredibly damaging to the children if they were still children and would likely be a source of permanent trauma even if they were adults.
They'd need to be used as evidence and shown to the jury if the fool tries to plead not guilty, but it would be incredibly wrong--and not at all incidentally--a violation of kiddie porn statutes across the nation and the world to publish them.
As to these real photos, I do think they all need to be described in as much nauseating detail as is necessary to let people know what's going on in them--each and every one of them. And more importantly, we need to know who's shown in them, when they were court-martialed, and what their sentences were. Oh, and tell us what they did to the officers who were supposed to stop shit like this from happening, because at a bare minimum, they were guilty of gross dereliction of duty.
I've heard vague assurances that the malefactors have been dealt with but I have yet to hear of anyone other than Graner and Englund and their pals being court-martialed and punished.
And yeah, I know that what happened at Abu Gharib was the inevitable result of the loosening of social controls inherent in the Cheney/Rumsfield torture ethic what was put into place there after when they moved Miller in from Gitmo to show 'em how its done. I'm not trying to minimize how how it went. I'm just saying I haven't heard about any accountability for the perps.
May 28, 2009 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
For this one . . .
Four simple words: You have no clue.
~OGD~
May 28, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Oops ...
Sorry ... that was meant for this comment here.
My apologies.
~OGD~
May 28, 2009 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I think you need to pick another analogy. Releasing pictures of a priest abusing children would be incredibly damaging to the children if they were still children and would likely be a source of permanent trauma even if they were adults."
Not if identities (and genitalia) were airbrushed, and otherwise withheld, which is the usual practice. As was done with the Abu Ghraib photos.
Memories sure get short -- both amnesia and Alzheimers set in -- when the perpetrators are USians.
May 29, 2009 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I get your point, but I think you need to pick another analogy. Releasing pictures of a priest abusing children would be incredibly damaging to the children if they were still children and would likely be a source of permanent trauma even if they were adults.
They'd need to be used as evidence and shown to the jury if the fool tries to plead not guilty, but it would be incredibly wrong--and not at all incidentally--a violation of kiddie porn statutes across the nation and the world to publish them.
As to these real photos, I do think they all need to be described in as much nauseating detail as is necessary to let people know what's going on in them--each and every one of them. And more importantly, we need to know who's shown in them, when they were court-martialed, and what their sentences were. Oh, and tell us what they did to the officers who were supposed to stop shit like this from happening, because at a bare minimum, they were guilty of gross dereliction of duty.
I've heard vague assurances that the malefactors have been dealt with but I have yet to hear of anyone other than Graner and Englund and their pals being court-martialed and punished.
And yeah, I know that what happened at Abu Gharib was the inevitable result of the loosening of social controls inherent in the Cheney/Rumsfield torture ethic what was put into place there after when they moved Miller in from Gitmo to show 'em how its done. I'm not trying to minimize how how it went. I'm just saying I haven't heard about any accountability for the perps.
May 28, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Considering how long there have been priest scandals with little kids. Maybe if we really got it out there, besides damaging the little kids a bit more who've already been damaged, it would make people take the problem serious enough to fix it. Out of sight, out of mind/marginalized/dismissed. How many times do we have to walk down the same twisted path? Sinead O'Connor tore up the picture of the Pope to protest the priest scandals, but all anyone remembers is that she was being anti-religious.
May 28, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see both sides. This would inflame the world that is just now getting to be snuggable again. It would mean lashing out at our soldiers abroad, no doubt. It also would give Obama an opportunity to make peace with many on the far-left. And, he could come out and say how this is not America, and will never ever happen again. He could say how these people will be prosecuted for the pieces of crap they are.
So I don't know. Either way, someone will be unhappy.
However, I feel that hiding the pictures will not keep them hidden for long. Not anymore....
May 28, 2009 2:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's an insult to the vast majority of soldiers who would never do anything like this, to say, "oh, boys will be boys, they all do this" and whatever dumbing down of our values is taking place. It only hurts us if we treat it like it's normal and excused (or if it actually is normal - prove me wrong, act horrified). Forman's "Goya's Ghosts" was released during the height of the Iraq War/Abu Ghraib revelations, portraying a sick lord of the Inquisition going to a girl he's had tortured and raping her/impregnating her on the pretense he'll help her get released. It's one thing to overreact with bullets in the heat of battle or continued deployment in the field, it's another for cold blooded calculated perversion and cruelty, sponsored from above as somehow playing "smash football" or creating the political facts they need.
I want these pictures hung around the necks of Bush and Cheney and Gonzales and Yoo. Powell, why didn't he speak up? Condi, where was she?
May 28, 2009 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
The pictures would be hung around the necks of troops in the field and any Americans overseas trying to clean up after Bush/Cheney. I assume you are not one of them Desidero.
The Germans weren't shamed until they were defeated on the battlefield and their economy and country destroyed and the Red Army was at their throats with only the US to protect them. Anyway, pictures of US military personnel engaging in perverted torture has nothing to do with WW2 or the Holocaust.
The Bush Base would never admit Bush had anything to do with torture, much as we know he was responsible. If Bush was photographed shoving a fluorescent light up someones ass Limbaugh would say the 'guy deserved it' (yes, Republicans have no shame and they have no conscience) 'because he is a terrorist and anyway gays do stuff like that for fun'.
In the meantime, the troops, the National Guard and Reserves in the field would be at increased risk.
May 28, 2009 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
For this one . . .
Four simple words: You ... have ... no ... clue.
~OGD~
May 28, 2009 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Condi was chairing the committee that prescribed the specific torture "techniques" to be used. I want all of it -- paper trail and photos -- piled on her fucking desk, with all the cameras present, so she can no longer weasel her lying ass out of it.
Exactly as I want the fake-hero Powell exposed, once and for all, for what he is. He was the first to "investigate" -- and cover up -- the My Lai massacre.
He knowingly threw away the lives of his troops for a lie -- by greasing the skids of the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq by lying to the UN, the world, the Congress, and We the people.
And he was a member of that committee that prescribed the sprecific tortures to be imposed on INNOCENT* detainees.
_____
*Innocent unless and until PROVEN guilty is the foundation of our democratic due process.
May 29, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The general content of the unreleased photos is not new news. It was pretty well described in 2004. Here's an example from CNN:
In the redacted and publicly released Tagbua Report, one of the findings stated that: "Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick." had occurred.
Yet after the Tagbua Report had been publicly released during a Senate Armed Services Committee, Hearing, one of its members Senator James Inhofe (Ok.-R), stated for the record on May 11, 2004, "as I watch this outrage -- this outrage everyone seems to have about the treatment of these prisoners -- I have to say, and I'm probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment.".
Inhofe knows that only a long stick, shoved up where the sun don't shine, can enable a Republican to walk straight and tall, so forceful sodomy with a blunt instrument isn't really an act of torture, but instead, compassionate conservatism. Besides Inhofe cannot imagine a more pleasurable act than being sodomised by a strident Bush S&M Man Date. It's a perk from being part of the Senate Republican Committee's leadership.
hearing on the the treatment of Iraqi Prisoners
May 28, 2009 5:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
They were not correct in trying to block the release of the information contained in the photos, and still have not taken adequate steps in that direction. The release of the photos is secondary.
May 28, 2009 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
So how does the General's claims of the horrific nature of these photos square with Obama's claim that the photos show nothing new and thus don't "add" anything? Someobody is lying here. I suspect it is the President. He may have been misinformed about the photos, but I believe I recall he said he has seen them himself. Either way, whichever story is the lie, this very issue has been specifically brought before the court and it has been rejected at the trial and appellate level. The administration is so unconvinced of the validity of it's claim/lie about the photos that they are backing a Lieberman rider to a bill before the Congress specficially allowing the administration to avoid complying with the law and withholding the photos. It's pathetic. They'll come out anyway and when they do the lies will unravel and Obama is going to look really, really bad and very, very much the hypocrite and scheming politician.
May 28, 2009 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
When you come across a horrific car wreck and the EMT personnel are waving you on and saying "nothing to see here, move along", do you walk up to them and stick your finger in their chest and call them a liar as well?
May 28, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
That depends on whether the EMT is zipping up their pants, or attempting to secrete a smoking handgun. I might be concerned if I smell alcohol on the EMT.
Or if I can see another officer on scene in the background in the process of sexually assaulting or murdering someone.
It is entirely true that releasing these pictures may increase risks faced by service personnel.
That, however, does not mitigate the fact that the preponderance of that risk resides in the simple FACT that the photographed acts happened, and were covered up.
If, as I suggested at the time, the direct perpetrators, and every person above them in the chain of command up to and including SecDef, had been hung by the neck until dead at Abu Ghraib, and the site itself had been razed to the ground and the earth salted, this risk would not exist.
It would have been a pretty shitty thing to do, but in the long run, we'd all be better off. (I'm including Iraqis and Afghanis and Pakistanis in that, too.)
May 28, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
And it should be remembered - it's not the Iraqis, and Afghanis, and the Taliban and al-Jazeera that this is being hidden from. They have seen some photographs, they have videotaped interviews with former detainees. If anything, keeping them hidden is permitting exaggeration of the crimes.
No, these things are being hidden from Americans, and Britons - to continue to keep from them the awful truth of empire.
May 28, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
excellent point!
May 28, 2009 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
That example is totally and compeletely irrelevant to the law governing the release of the photos. Your argument is the same as the argument Bush and his generals proferred to the court and which was resoundingly rejected. Now it is Obama and the very same generals making the very same and very lame argument. It's really pathetic.
May 28, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't about going after our SOLDIERS (especially the vast majority that have moral values), it's about going after those that ordered the abuse or allowed it to happen.
They are just as guilty as somebody ordering or watching a guard in our local prison rape a prisoner. It's a CRIME. In this case a WAR crime.
Just imagine how you'd feel hearing about your son or daughter serving in the U.S. military being abused in this way.
May 28, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hell, we aren't investigating (let alone prosecuting) allegations of rape of US soldiers by US soldiers! Why should we give a damn when such crimes are perpetrated by US troops against sub-humans who also insist upon clinging to a wrong religion!?
May 29, 2009 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, we on a moral merry go round.
I can understand the justification for protecting troops in harm's way. This is more of a political justification, however, because this information is common knowledge in even the remotest village in Al Anbar. Iraq and Afghanistan are aware that atrocities were committed... and they are also aware that the policies have changed.
I can also understand the justification that releasing the photos is the equivalent to releasing torture porn. I disagree because the photos would be sufficiently redacted. I further disagree because the public has the dubious honor of needing to have their muzzles rubbed in this mess.
None of this would have happened if the elites in this nation hadn't conspired to sell an unnecessary and illegal invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation that posed no threat. The fact that the public conveniently justifies the whims of the elites that perpetuate eternal war in the name of empire does NOT mean that we should keep our heads in the sand in order to protect the military who are ordered into these illegal adventures.
May 28, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that some of you are forgetting to separate the issue of torture from the issue of detainee abuse. They are two different things:
1) torture that was part of interogations that were ordered from Cheney's office and used to create a false link between Iraq and Al Qaeda
2) abuse of detainees by their guards as a result of what appears to have been a complete breakdown in order and discipline
Both issues of course stem from the complete incompetence and corruption of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld administration, and both issues are part of a much larger picture than what most news reports are condensing this into. On the one hand, there was the torture and interrogation of detainees, and on the other hand you have have guards that were abusing, raping and murdering prisoners.
Then there are the various reporsts that came out of independent contractors, such as Blackwater and KBR, raping and murdering our own women US military soldiers, and the subsequent military coverups of that.
There are also the incidents of US soldiers indiscriminately killing Iraqi civilians, and the most recent example of the soldiers convicted of killing a family after raping some of their children.
From reading the news reports, it appears that a lot of the photos in question were taken by guards at the prisons and were passed around amongst their buddies. If so, these were crimes committed by the guards as part of the overall breakdown in (or complete lack of) authority. Horrific as they may be, these would not be evidence in any way of orders to torture prisoners to gain information. So pressing to release them wouldn't lead to any progress in the desire to prosecute Bush officials.
On the other hand, if photos exist that were taken as part of interrogations where torture was used, that's another story. Either way, though, the information and evidence of the crimes is already known, and putting any of these images out where any 14 year old with a computer can access them, is a bad idea.
And yes, the biggest issue is still that there are still a lot of our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, and elsewhere, that would bear the brunt of any backlash that the release of these photos would surley cause.
May 28, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Completely agree. These are two issues. That's why Rummy, as PseudoCyAnts said above, was pretty horrified by the detainee abuse pics. If it was pics of torturing that he had ordered, then he'd be a little more OK with it (though, hopefully he has enough humanity to have felt a little disquieted, the bastard)
May 28, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rumsfeld was alarmed BECAUSE the abuses he authorized were PHOTOGRAPHED, therefore put ON THE RECORD as I-N-C-O-N-T-R-O-V-E-R-T-I-B-L-E E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E that ineluctably and logically lead directly back to RUMSFELD, et al.
And he was faking a moral outrage which with his ilk is only and entirley SHOW.
May 29, 2009 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The premise of your whole comment is just wrong.
things
Definition of torture:
May 28, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point is: there was torture that was ordered from the top down, and there was abuse that was the result of a complete breakdown in authority. It's absurd to argue that guards raped prisoners because they were ordered to do so.
May 28, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's absurd to argue that guards raped prisoners because they were ordered to do so.
Sins of omission, not comission.
That is to say - were the guards under order to NOT rape prisoners, or to prevent it in any and all cases?
"Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?"
May 28, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sins of omission don't hold up very well in a court of law.
May 28, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not absurd that an order for Code Red from the top would be obeyed.
May 28, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now you're just making stuff up with nothing to back it.
May 28, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw it in a movie, it must be true.
May 29, 2009 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
OFFICIAL investigations found that the SAME "techniques" used in Abu Ghraib were used in OTHER Iraqi prisons, AND in Afghanistan and Guantanomo. They were ordered FROM THE TOP.
You can be CERTAIN that included RAPE as a means of torture/coercion.
RAPE is not "abuse" in ANY circumstance, even when not deliberately used in effort to elicit "confessions".
May 29, 2009 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
To do a terrible analogy:
It's like a random break in occurring in a Washington DC hotel vs. one that was ordered by Nixon. To the person who lost goods, it's the same thing. But the cause is different.
That said, this is still human rights abuses that happened under our watch. Horrible things were done to people under our name.
May 28, 2009 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
More like the motivation is different in this case, Motivation #1 - Extract information. Motivation # 2 - Create abusive culture to propagate climate of fear to help in the extraction of information? Motivation #3 - US military is composed of sadistic people who take great pleasure in abusing other humans, particularly those of differing racial/ethnic backgrounds. It's debatable whether there's any difference at all unless you accept motivation #3, which most Americans would argue against.
May 28, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was going to argue against your motivation #2 by saying something along the lines of "not creating an unabusive..."--but it doesn't work. Whether through incompetence or actual maliciousness, the Bush White House created an abusive environment which allowed these atrocities to take place.
May 28, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse and pretext are irrelevant: in law, torture is torture. RAPE is not merely "abuse". Nor is punching, or throwing people against walls, or threatening them with dogs.
But we do know there are USians who will minimize war crimes as being -- gee -- only "abuse" -- Republicans and Bushit criminal enterprisers and supporters are among them -- instead of being that which the LAW says they are: TORTURE.
So what are the LAME EXCUSES against releasing the photos? "Torture deniers" won't believe them -- and they are what percentage of the population?
The tabloid media will do what it always does: turn it all into "porn" -- which we can't allow to happen in this specific instance, even though it is easily and regularly preventable, the First Amendment notwithstanding.
We the people not only have the RIGHT to know what OUR gov't does in our name, but also the RESPONSIBILITY. And there are those who need their faces rubbed in it before they'll believe it. Juries wouldn't be required to believe ALLEGATIONS of what is IN the photos; they would have to SEE them.
All this hand-wringing over pseudo-moral concern for the victims, and speculations of consequences of the release of the photos, is transparently BULLSHIT.
May 29, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are falsely separating two related issues - I'm not sure why, though.
1) torture that was part of interogations that were ordered from Cheney's office and used to create a false link between Iraq and Al Qaeda
2) abuse of detainees by their guards as a result of what appears to have been a complete breakdown in order and discipline
They simply are NOT two totally different things.
Detainees were abused in an ongoing effort to get intelligence on insurgents, establish an Iraq-al Qaeda link independent of state involvement, and of course for the location of WMDs or evidence of WMD programs. And evidence is accumulating that even the random abuse was more policy than bad apples - malignant neglect is no defense.
Some abuse was committed outside of the search for intelligence, in the same fashion as it happens every single day in every single country of the world where one person has unlimited power over another(Cf. Milgram).
Some few detainees were considered of sufficiently high value that additional abuse was deliberately applied - abuse that met the statutory definitions of torture.
It should be remembered that some of the "abuse" that is not here considered torture - likewise meets the statutory definition, whether we like to admit it or not.
Rape? Check. Homicide? Check. Child abuse? Check. Bodily harm? Check.
I'm against the death penalty, for more reasons than one.
But I am convinced that for the sake of the security of future generations of US and citizens of other western democracies, as well as the prospects of Islam undominated by Wahhabism and Taliban-like organizations, we must have war crimes trials - of the boots on the ground, of the company commanders, of the commanders at CENTCOM, and the office of the Cabinet.
I should point out that the people most likely to benefit from the US Government proving that it can and will police itself in accordance with it's own, and international law, will be those members of the armed forces deployed outside the US.
May 28, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe you should read my comments before jumping to your own conclusions:
May 28, 2009 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity/incompetence?
There is some validity to that.
There is also some validity to suspecting that Cheney et al had intended to spark a multi-generational war or conflict, and in the process ensure that no reconciliation would be possible betwen western democracies and 3rd world Islam.
(Cf. PNAC) (Crazy, not stupid.)
War is, after all, enormously profitable. For some.
And Halliburton HQ is now in the sovereign state of Dubai, UAE - a state with considerable foreign investments, as well as aspirations toward becoming a nuclear power.
And again - we disagree.
I am not convinced that they are separate issues. Or rather - I believe they are not nearly as distinct as you state that you believe.
May 28, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point is that there are two separate issues here, and evidence that relates each one. You can't use the evidence of guards abusing detainees to prove a case of interrogators being ordered to torture suspects.
May 28, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
They aren't separate issues. They are coextensive, on a continuum, the WHOLE of which is PROHIBITED as being TORTURE.
NO degree of "abuse" is ALLOWED BECAUSE PROHIBITED AS BEING TORTURE.
May 29, 2009 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
... what J said, that's more or less what I meant.
June 3, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The issue of torture cannot be properly separated from the issue of detainee abuse, in terms of responsibility. Torture is torture, and the responsibility for it rests squarely in the hands of the detaining power. This cannot be delegated away.
May 28, 2009 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The issue of torture cannot be properly separated from the issue of detainee abuse, in terms of responsibility. "
Even if GC applies, particular responsibilities can be determined. In fact, your use of "properly" is the problem, because a proper separation is what you'd ignore or pretend cannot be achieved while yammering as you often do for perfection in government.
It might be the responsibility of the USA to properly prosecute abusers, but that doesn't mean we cannot separate the abusive guards from the non-abusive guards, nor does it mean we cannot separate out "abuse by protocol" into segments such as "authorized by Rumsfeld" vs. "not authorized by Rumsfeld", etc.
May 28, 2009 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Irrelevant. The "abuses" -- ALL of them -- are, in law, TORTURE.
May 29, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have missed by a mile, the truth about the abuse in the military prisons. Gen. Karpinski has made clear that the orders to conduct the torture in the military prisons came from the very top. Gen. Taguba has also made it very clear that these were not instances of abberant behavior or conduct. It is beyond any question that Rumsfeld himself ordered much of this and it is quite possible that Bush and Cheney were in on and approved those decisions.
May 28, 2009 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
What exactly do you know about what Rumsfeld ordered and how it relates to what was done?
You say "much of" but that's just smear rhetoric since it could apply to < 1% or > 99%.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/levin-calls-cheney-a-liar-on-torture.php#comment-3482441
May 29, 2009 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
READ the "Torture Memoes". Rumsfeld knew the contents of those. And he knew the contents of those we composed, and those he otherwise signed off on.
May 29, 2009 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read the Levin report from April. It makes it quite clear that Abu Ghraib was not ordered by either Cheney or Rumsfeld.
May 29, 2009 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"2) abuse of detainees by their guards as a result of what appears to have been a complete breakdown in order and discipline"
That LIE has ALREADY been REFUTED: we KNOW the torture techniques -- calling them "abuse" is a LIE -- were authorized AT THE TOP, were used at Abu Ghraib, AND were ALSO used NOT ONLY at Abu Ghraib, including Guantanomo and Afghanistan, EVEN THOUGH Graner and Lyndie English never set foot in places other than Abu Ghraib.
Those "abuses" are ALSO TORTURE.
May 29, 2009 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know Astral, the truth be told, dissemination into the public sphere will generate YouTube comedy within a month. That is true.
I go back and forth I guess. A flip flopper.
But I WANT THE COURTS to have these pictures and all document available during the litigation process or processes, god willing. (blesses himself)
May 28, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You and I are in the same boat, DD.
May 28, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll be pulling an oar too, if you'll have me.
I truly do believe that sunlight is the best disinfectant.
But ... rule 34.
May 28, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
We all want to see justice done. I'll maintain that prosecution is possible without having to see these images sensationalized on the pages of websites like TMZ.com or worse. War criminals have been successfully prosecuted without the general public having to be exposed to the gruesome evidence. We've all seen the concentration camp photos, but I don't recall ever seeing any of the photos the Nazis themselves took of their torture of victims, espeially sexually explicit ones.
May 28, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
We the people have not only RIGHT to be "exposed to the gruesome evidence" but also the RESPONSIBLITY to be exposed to them.
STOP defending violation of the First Amendment, and excluding We the people from the responsibility, in behalf of non-existent "sensibilities".
Photos have been released in the past -- with identities of victims protected (the perpetrators don't deserve such protection). We haven't forgot how to do that.
May 29, 2009 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ugh.
Top reason to not release.
Rule 34.
I may have to go be sick.
May 28, 2009 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Had to Google that one. Learn something new every day.
May 28, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
DD, the courts have already seen the photos and ordered them released YEARS ago! The District Judge went through them one by one and made sure any reasonable objections were addressed.
May 28, 2009 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point Oleeb. I was thinking of other litigation involving filthy torturing conspirators in w's admin.
But its all good. I mean everyone knows where the photos are.
May 28, 2009 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
why?
every time you hide the truth you give someone else a reason to do these type of things.
not only should these photos be released but they should be the starting point of a congressional investigation.
every person involved should be named and if needed prosecuted.
i dont trust people who claim truth has no value.
May 28, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
The truth has been hidden since December, 2000 when the Supreme Court in Bush vs. Gore countermanded the Florida Supreme Court's order to for a state wide recount.
Since then there have dozens of photos, thousands of dead, scores of lies exposed and overwhelming amounts of evidence to investigate the Bush years. I hope it happens, preferably by serious prosecutors in the DOJ, and not by the Democratic wimps of Congress.
There have also been thousands of dead US troops coming home the last 6 years, we don't need one more because JadeZ thinks we need a new 'starting point' for truth.
May 28, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. 1,000,000 dead should be enough truth. We reached the tipping point a long time ago.
May 28, 2009 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've never met anyone who claims that.
May 28, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unless we have a truth commission to get to what really happened and on who's say so, I say release the photos. Obama seems to say I won't allow a real investigation and I won't release irrefutable evidence. This builds trust?
May 28, 2009 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Releasing photos won't bring truth, well deserved accountability for upper level Bush war criminals or an investigation see my comment above.
May 28, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see things differently. And I also disagree with the conclusion you throw glibly around that releasing the photos will put our troops at greater risk. This is surely the view of military leaders in the field and advising the president...this is always their position. This is the position of every military including the German high command during WWII. Goebbels never released information about the actions of the SS yet millions fought against the Nazis on the basis of their knowledge of their crimes (without photos). I happen to think this thinking is wrong. (And you say nothing that indicates a truth commission would endanger the troops). I think admitting the crime and labelling it a crime is what protects our troops.
But if you are right, that releasing the photos might endanger the troops, then I would guess you and astral66 believe that the earlier release of the Abu Ghraib photos did cause deaths and injury to our troops and similarly Obama's talk of torture and our condemning it here also puts our troops in danger. Should these whistle-blowers be punished? I think you are entirely wrong. You are buying lock, stock and barrel, an argument that the military leaders with customary shortsight want. And here as in expanding the Af-Pak war Obama seems unable to exercise independent judgment and certainly is flip-flopping all over the place.
One other point that you do not treat. Despite Obama's rhetoric, we do not seem to be a day closer to ending this war (the surest way to protect our troops...removing them from an unprovoked, unnecessary, immoral, war of aggression). Anyone following the reports from the war for the last few months (and I admit this is hard to do since the press no longer acts like there is a war going on) will have noted that American casualties are inching up, and that Maliki wants to go after the Sunnis and it is only American restraint that is preventing more intensive conflict...the surge was after all buying time by buying off Sunnis...at some point there does have to be a resolution and it does not seem like it will be peaceful if we leave. So when does Obama decide to leave? I am not so hopeful on this and do not buy the Administration rhetoric here. If we are to get out, someone has to confront the problems.
OK. I know I've rambled. Back to the photos. I think the distaste for this conflict in the US and in western Europe and in the US allies in the Middle East (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan) will grow significantly with the release of these photos and there will be serious new pressure to get out. Again in the end that will save American troops.
May 28, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Blah blah blah . . .
Get the damn President off his ass, the clowns on the hill off their asses, and the justice department off it's ass and get all this crap into the sunlight and let the damn chips fall where they may.
Anything less than that... then everyone in the village on the banks of the Potomac are part and parcel of the cover-up.
No matter under which political banner they try to hide.
Your mileage may vary . . .
~OGD~
May 28, 2009 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, OGD.
May 28, 2009 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want to know how things happened. Release the pictures while covering the genitals and faces of those involved.
May 28, 2009 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink