Actually, kgb, the child-rape allegations stem from apocryphal allegations made in a 2004 speech by usually reliable Seymour Hersh. The Telegraph story yesterday is problematic; it seems to make connections between Gen. Taguba's 2004 report on Abu Ghraib abuses and the newest batch of photos. As USA Today puts it (under a byline of an old school chum, H. Darr Beiser):

According to the Telegraph, the new photos depicted much more serious abuses than previously documented. One photo reportedly showed an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner and another was said to show a male translator raping a male detainee, the paper reported... It was not immediately clear from the newspaper report who had seen the photos or how they might have been obtained.

Gen. Taguba never says he actually saw photos of rape and sexual abuse, but does indicate existence of photos depicting such crimes; in his 2004 report, again he made no reference to seeing such photos, but that detainees has made rape and sexual abuse allegations in sworn statements.

For a subject as volatile as this one, it's inexplicable - and unconscionable - that the Telegraph would file a story so vague and unsubstantiated. It seems a standard interview with Taguba was trumped up as "proof" of these atrocities.

My guess is the President, whether intentionally or not, is the one who is lying.

Taguba knows the facts and the photos inside out since he's the one who did the investigation.

The entire argument Obama offered for his flip flop on releasing the photos was weak, political and designed to sway public opinion, not the opinions of judges. A big part of what the Obama apologists seized on last week was that because the pictures didn't show anything we hadn't seen before there was no need to stir up those emotional muslim terrorists with new photos that didn't depict new criminal activities. The President also argued lamely, but even so the apologists for the President echoed that the people who had committed these acts were just a few bad apples and they had been appropriately punished. Hmmmm...

If one follows the law then, the President is factually in error since what is depicted in the photos are clearly war crimes and Gen. Taguba confirms this even while contradicting the President's statement that there was nothing new to see.

The district court addressed this very issue in its ruling against the Bush Administration when it offered the very same arguments. Importantly, the judge noted that one of the key reasons the law needs to be observed is the public impact of release of the photos because it will stir debate not just about the specific acts, but it will raise other questions that will take the debate even further up to and including things like following the chain of command to find out how the actual rules for conduct by the military were allowed to be broken.

As for the "child rape" thing I have no problem believing Sy Hersh was correct about that. He may not have been saying that the child rape photos were part of the photos relating to this particular case. I suspect that's the disconnect.

IIRC most of the Taguba report was based on eyewitness testimony from soldiers. (And CACI contractors?)

There is also eyewitness testimony from prisoners. IIRC all of these statements were in an addendum to the report. It can all be found online.

If you have not read it yet then do not read the eyewitness testimony, this filthy evil shit will haunt you.

I read it when it came online and have not forgotten the graphic details since. Despite swearing I wouldn`t look at it again I checked and there is multiple accounts from prisoners of someone in uniform raping a boy estimated to be between 15-18 while pictures are taken.

I didn`t need to read it again for that, I remembered every fucking detail. I was looking, hoping in a bizarre way, for accounts of rape of adult male prisoners but I dont remember any and cant find anything besides the endless beatings, tieing people up and threats of rape in the shower, the female underwear and disgusting evil shit we all know about.

There were "amnesty boxes" were soldiers could leave photos, and Taguba has used every oppertunity he had to explain his superiors limited the "scope" of his investigation... so maybe thats why we don`t know anything about adult males being raped.

But with no indication of male adults being raped I worry its pictures of the story of this boy are what Taguba is talking about.

Maybe the guy who did it wasn`t American, the eyewitness noted his accent but what kind of accent it was is blacked out.

The eyewitness testimony can be found here, but be sure to read the stuff about adults before you decide to read the rest.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6527.htm

You're missing the lawyer-speak:

"are not particularly sensational"

The photos are sensational, but not "particularly" so. It's a non-statement meant to minimize attention and to suggest that they represent more of the same. Not a lie, but more of a "these are not the droids you are looking for" or "nothing to see here folks, move along" kind of tactic.

Methinks neither.

I think the daily telegraph is altering old stories to make them seem new. They've already passed along 2004 pictures and make them appear that they were the "hidden" ones and have basically lied into saying that they were new. Who's to say that the Taguba interview is new? Who's to say it's even true? When the telegraph explains why they've changed title names and photos to make up new stories, then they'll have credibility. As for now, they really don't.

It seems the Guardian article which quotes General Taguba is coming in question for it's accuracy and veracity.

Swampland

"The article is incorrect," says Lt. Col. Patrick Ryder, a Department of Defense spokesperson. "It alleges that there were images of apparent rape and sexual abuse. This is incorrect. . . . None of the photos in question depict the images described in the article." By "photos in question," Ryder was referring to the roughly 2,000 images that President Obama recently decided not to release. At the briefing today, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs echoed the broad denial, saying that the Telegraph report was "non-factual." It is important to note that rumors of rape photos have been around for years, but there has never been any proof that they exist. The likely source of the rumors is well known, as claims of rape and sexual assault are described in some detail in the military investigations of Abu Ghraib. One detainee, who was interviewed by Army investigators, claimed to have witnessed the rape of a teenage male detainee by a male interrogator at the Abu Ghraib prison. He claimed that a female soldier took pictures of the event, but as one Army investigation found in 2004, "no other reporting supports DETAINEE-05's allegation, nor have photographs of the rape surfaced." . . .

I strongly suggest reading the entire piece and not just my cherry picked quote.