Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- In Blind Poll, Republicans Choose Progressive Budget Solutions Over Their Own Party's
- Not Guilty By Virtue of Videotape, Which, Unlike the Police, Doesn't Lie
- The 'Land of 10,000 Lakes' Is Running Dry
- Manning: Before Wikileaks, Leaked Docs Offered to NYT, WaPo
- Bob Woodward Embodies US Political Culture in a Single Outburst
Popular content
Today's Top News
Abu Ghraib Abuse Photos 'Show Rape'
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.
PHOTOGRAPHS of Iraqi prisoner abuse which US President Barack Obama does not want released include images of apparent rape and sexual abuse, Britain's Daily Telegraph newspaper reported. Prison guards secure the main gate of the newly named Baghdad Central Prison in Baghdad's Abu Ghraib February 21, 2009.
REUTERS/Mohammed Ameen 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.
The graphic nature of some of the images may explain the US President's attempts to block the release of an estimated 2,000 photographs from prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan despite an earlier promise to allow them to be published.
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."
In April, Mr Obama's administration said the photographs would be released and it would be "pointless to appeal" against a court judgment in favour of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
But after lobbying from senior military figures, Mr Obama changed his mind saying they could put the safety of troops at risk.
Earlier this month, he said: "The most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to inflame anti-American public opinion and to put our troops in greater danger."
It was thought the images were similar to those leaked five years ago, which showed naked and bloody prisoners being intimidated by dogs, dragged around on a leash, piled into a human pyramid and hooded and attached to wires.
Mr Obama seemed to reinforce that view by adding: "I want to emphasise that these photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib."
The latest photographs relate to 400 cases of alleged abuse between 2001 and 2005 in Abu Ghraib and six other prisons. Mr Obama said the individuals involved had been "identified, and appropriate actions" taken.
Maj Gen Taguba's internal inquiry into the abuse at Abu Ghraib, included sworn statements by 13 detainees, which, he said in the report, he found "credible based on the clarity of their statements and supporting evidence provided by other witnesses."
Among the graphic statements, which were later released under US freedom of information laws, is that of Kasim Mehaddi Hilas in which he says: "I saw [name of a translator] ******* a kid, his age would be about 15 to 18 years. The kid was hurting very bad and they covered all the doors with sheets. Then when I heard screaming I climbed the door because on top it wasn't covered and I saw [name] who was wearing the military uniform, putting his **** in the little kid's ***.... and the female soldier was taking pictures."
The translator was an American Egyptian who is now the subject of a civil court case in the US.
Three detainees, including the alleged victim, refer to the use of a phosphorescent tube in the sexual abuse and another to the use of wire, while the victim also refers to part of a policeman's "stick" all of which were apparently photographed.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
117 Comments so far
Show AllO Rose, thou art sick!
The invisible worm
That flies in the night,
In the howling storm,
Has found out thy bed
Of crimson joy:
And his dark secret love
Does thy life destroy.
William Blake
Joe
W A R C R I M E S W A R C R I M I N A L S FERAL BESTIALITY is the name of this thing called a country. I guess the only "thing" for you to do is to get over it and vote on another carefully scripted poll at MoveOn.irg...we all just be movin' on....I know, let's have another election! Yeah! We can find another pretty face...I know we can...somewhere...Hope is a terrible bond...
I demand that the CD site monitors tell us why they booted Thomas Moore off.
Curious that Thomas managed to post a couple of comments telling us "goodbye" presumably AFTER he was kicked off.
How does THAT work?
I tried to reply to one of TM's statements just now, and got a message saying that the "comment you are trying to reply to does not exist".
This is extremely worrying for a liberal op/ed website that purports to be democratic!!
What's going on here?
All your base are belong to us.
I can't help but wonder why everyone seems to be separating the torture that went on in the detention facilities from the whole ball of torture wax that is war. Why are there war crimes, when all of war is a crime? War=torture.
GOOD POINT!!!
Reminds me of this......
How is there a hate crime, when crime itself is an expression of hate?
(violent crime that is).
"rev.charity May 29th, 2009 12:32 am
I can't help but wonder why everyone seems to be separating the torture that went on in the detention facilities from the whole ball of torture wax that is war. Why are there war crimes, when all of war is a crime? War=torture."
MOST readers here probably know that I agree with rev.charity, already, given I've posted similar words enough times at CD. Following is a copy from the CD brief of May 28th that I got the link for this CD page from.
QUOTE:
Photos of acts that people can't stand to see?
How about "Extreme Deformities" caused by the U.S. and starting long ago, already? Can people stand to see the extreme deformities caused to children due to the U.S.A.'s extreme use of depeleted uranium, but are unable to stand seeing pictures of GWoT detainees being tortured, with rape, electrical shocks, ...? If they can stand to see the former, then what's the problem with the latter?
I don't hear or read about anyone complaining about the extreme consequences of D.U., anyway.
To view a set of the PIC's, simply do a Web search for, ""Extreme deformities" Iraq", minus the outer quotes.
What about the extreme hardship displaced Iraqs, Afghans, Pakistanis, people of Congo, ... go through because of U.S. and NATO wars of ... always aggression; not always equally overt, but all U.S. and NATO wars of aggression for imperialism, Big Corp.'s "national interests" in natural resources of other countries and therefore peoples; hardship of the extreme consequences of starvation, poverty, causing children to prostitute themselves, and so on; what about this [torture]? Does this seem to be something the people can stand, but not the torture of rape, electrical shocks, sleep deprivation, ... for a few hundred or a few thousand individuals who should have never been imprisoned to begin with, but while Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis, people of Congo, ... should have never been warred upon to begin with, either?
Biased, eh!
There's been awfully little criticism of all of these other extreme crimes against humanity; compared to the major campaign about torture. Why this ... odd bias?!
Go ahead and call me a "devil's advocate". If that's what I'm really doing, then call me this; but I won't cease to notice the biased reporting and complaints.
END QUOTE
Go ahead and complain like the following post says.
"EBlair May 29th, 2009 12:51 am
oh the poor rev. was insulted.
sorry chaps.
didn't know you were the victim here."
I DID NOT know the EBlair was victim of any of these GWoT wars of aggression, massacres, massacres of wedding celebrations, extreme refugee plights, depleted uranium, white phosphorous, etcetera, and given I haven't seen any posts of EBlair's about the total and supreme criminality of these wars, well, I guess he's one of the victims and thinks these supreme crimes are okay.
I'm repeating the following article link and excerpt from another page at CD for "First We Got The Bomb And That Was Good".
"West Plots To Supplant United Nations With Global NATO",
by Rick Rozoff, Stop NATO, May 27 2009
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13759
EXCERPT:
Von Sponeck's Warning: Subverting The United Nations From Within
This past February Hans von Sponeck, former UN Assistant Secretary General and UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq, wrote a probing indictment called The United Nations and NATO for a Swiss Journal.
It it he warned that "The world of the 192 UN member states has come to a fork in the road. One way leads to a world focused on the well being of society, conflict resolution and peace, i.e. to a life of dignity and human security with social and economic progress for all, wherever they may be as stated in the United Nations Charter. Down the other road is where the nineteenth century 'Great Game' for power will be further played out, a course which, in the twenty-first century, will become more extensive and dangerously more aggressive than ever.
"This road supposedly leads to democracy, but in truth it is all about power, control and exploitation." [13]
..., he remarked of his former employer and its would-be replacement:
"A comparison of the mandates of the United Nations and of NATO shows clearly how opposed the purposes of these two institutions are. In the 63 years of its existence, the United Nations mandate has remained the same.
"The United Nations was created to promote and maintain worldwide peace. NATO exists to assure the self-interest of a group of 26 UN member countries." [14]
In a section of his article titled "21st century NATO incompatible with UN Charter," von Sponeck added, "In 1999, NATO acknowledged that it was seeking to orient itself according to a new fundamental strategic concept. From a narrow military defense alliance it was to become a broad based alliance for the protection of the vital resources" needs of its members. Besides the defense of member states' borders, it set itself new purposes such as assured access to energy sources and the right to intervene in 'movements of large numbers of persons' and in conflicts far from the boarders of NATO countries. The readiness of the new alliance to include other countries, particularly those that had previously been part of the Soviet Union, shows how the character of this military alliance has altered."
"[T]he United Nations monopoly of the use of force, especially as specified in Article 51 of the Charter, was no longer accepted according to the 1999 NATO doctrine.
"NATO's territorial scope, until then limited to the Euro-Atlantic region, was expanded by its member to encompass the whole world in keeping with a strategic context that was global in its sweep." [15]
In a following section named "UN-NATO-accord: incompatible with UN Charter," he exposed a clandestine accord signed between the secretaries general of NATO and the United Nations, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and Ban Ki-moon, respectively, on September 23, 2008, which "took place without any reference to the United Nations Security Council.
"In the generally accepted agreement of stated purposes, one reads of a 'broader council' and 'operative cooperation, for example in 'peace keeping in the Balkans and in Afghanistan. Both secretaries general committed themselves to acting in common to meet threats and challenges.
"The UN/NATO accord is anything but neutral and will thus not remain without serious consequences." [16]
...
END OF EXCERPT
WELL, I GUESS EBlair and likes will just say that torture is worse than supreme crimes ... of wars of aggression and that the rest of us who say the contrary and who are first and foremost concerned about the supreme criminality of the supreme crimes just have to grow up and realise that we're simply not one of the victims and therefore don't know what we're talking about when saying that the torture is neither new, since it's a crime that the U.S. has been long committing, and that it's not the supreme crime, but a [related] one. Maybe EBlair and likes think that by stopping related crimes we'll therefore or thereby be able to stop the supreme crimes, but it's a false argument, if adopted.
rev.charity and the rest of us just have to accept that most people who are emphatically or feverishly focused on the crimes of torture and these needing to be stopped simply don't feel the same way, or not as much, about the urgency of stopping the supreme crimes. We and the [millions], many millions, of direct victims, which includes hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers, besides the soldiers of U.S. allies in these wars, well, we all just have to accept to get our way last of all; we're last in line, because the supreme crimes are being relegated by many people to far lesser concern, if any concern at all.
It's seeming like another, but subtle way of supporting the wars of aggression, really.
Furthermore, PTSD!
Soldiers, U.S. soldiers anyway, have been committing suicide at rates of around 110 to 120, if not more, per year for some years now, and I've seen much more reporting on the crimes of torture in only the past weeks than I've seen for articles on the extreme fates of the soldiers who've been psychologically traumatised, which [is] another form of torture from waging wars, wars of aggression anyway, over several years now.
Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, will suffer serious PTSD for years, if not decades, to come. Families break up. Etcetera. These are the soldiers who aren't committing or haven't yet committed suicide. These people haven't committed suicide, but still suffer psychological torture from what they've either seen being done by peers and/or what they themselves did; because of the extremely, rather totally, criminal orders and deceit of the leadership of the USA, the complicit "news" media propagandists, and the many fellow citizens and non-citizen residents who supported these wars.
It's odd that so many extreme and intolerable consequences of wars of aggression based on LIES, deception, malicious, falacious, ... diabolical propaganda, and an ignorant populace of supporters have gone relatively little mentioned compared to the crimes of direct torture practices.
All of these are consequences that are [related] to the supreme crimes of the wars of aggression and these are what need to urgently be stopped; first and foremost. Stop these and the related crimes will cease. Stop crimes of direct torture and all of these other related consequences will continue, as also will the supreme crimes, the wars of aggression.
Seems it's okay with many people to continue the supreme criminality; just that some selected related crimes are somehow particularly intolerable.
Peculiar, is this "phenomenon".
You nailed it.
I'm a participant and shan't be trusted.
"There's been awfully little criticism of all of these other extreme crimes against humanity; compared to the major campaign about torture. Why this ... odd bias?!"
(to use a quote wrongly attributed to Stalin)
"The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of a million is a statistic,"
Sick but true. Torture is a part of war, not the other way around. In fact, one form of torture, that we have acknowledged doing, is to not treat captives for injuries they sustained during their capture. If that's torture (which it surely is) how many more Iraqis and Afghans have we tortured by destroying their hospitals and infrastructure? How many sick men, women, and children did we torture to death by denying them medicine under the sanctions of the 90's? Our "torture" goes much further than interrogations and water boarding.
It was clear when we (BushCo) invaded Iraq - it was all about oil, power, and world domination. These thugs used lies and political might to get their way, and enrich themselves and their cronies along the way. And boy did they steal everyone blind.
But I never understood the torture thing. It made no sense. Why torture, why break the Geneva Convention, and international treaties, and the Uniform Military Code? Why?
Then it occurred to me - because "the war on terrorism" was a sham. That there were maybe a handful of Al Quaeda at best, if they really existed. Funny coincidence that it means "the base" - same as Bush used to play to "the base"? I bet that was a funny inside joke.
Osama bin Laden had been on the CIA payroll when he fought in Afghanistan against the Russians. No one in the media ever talks about that FACT. What if he were still on our payroll? Would that explain why Bush closed the Bin Laden division? Would that explain why he has never been caught? Would that explain why 19 so called hijackers managed to outfox US security and even NORAD? So many people now believe that 911 was an inside job - too many questions - too many missing footages. Now back to the torture question...
Could it be they needed to CREATE terrorists, in order to keep this golden goose of a war going? If they rounded up people, beat them, humiliated them, tortured, raped, and even killed some, when they released them (and the did release them), wouldn't that ensure a new generation of terrorists and suicide bombers who now truly hated us? It sure seems to go along with all the evidence we are now seeing about how Bush, Cheney, and Rice ignored warnings, and even turned diplomacy aside when they had opportunities to end this war in 2004 and 2005. This was one of the biggest con-jobs in history.
If you look at it in this light, it makes sense in a very Dick-Cheney-stomach-sickening-way. What do you think?
Why torture? Part of the answer, as you suggest, is that torture was a policy imposed on our troops by Cheney and others in the civilian leadership. Perhaps the goal was to manufacture false confessions of a link between Iraq and 9/11. Keith Olbermann has discussed that with several guests lately.
But another part of the answer is that there are individual soldiers who are sadistic and drunk with power. Sadists seek professions where they will have opportunities. One of the Abu Ghraib soldier/torturers had been a jailer in civilian life.
Google "Hope Steffey" to see video of what such people do, in the name of "law enforcement," in the U.S. There's a torture and sexual perversion county jail in Ohio, operating at this moment.
Obama has made the biggest mistake ever when he tried to sweep this under the rug. He should stop listening to his puppet masters who script his teleprompter speeches, and instead start speaking from common sense and the rule of law.
My old philosophy prof had an expression that I think can be applied to Obama, "Same shit, different package".