Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Bogus Torture Coverup
The Pentagon is denying the facts: Photographs of Abu Ghraib torture are even more sexually explicit than first reported, including rape and sodomy, writes The Daily Beast's Scott Horton, who has obtained specific and detailed corroboration of the photos.
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.
Click Image Below to View The Daily Beast's image Gallery of Abuse Photos
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."
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 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.
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.




86 Comments so far
Show AllThe fallout from the Bush error will be long, painful, & taint everyone associated with it, no matter how tangentially. This episode is a prime example of that. The most damaging aspect will be the taint on the American people, because this was done in our name and funded by our tax $$.
mary Bush/CheneyObushma Was Rape,Sodomy, part of Enhanced Interrogation? The World is asking is this what America means by spreading democracy? Forced penetraion using brooms and phospherus sticks. John Yoo publicly argued there is no law that could prevent the Pres. from ordering torture of a child in custody including crushing his testicles.Do Americans or Politicans have a moral conscience? Others are saying No they are savages and killers. Gruesome. Done with our tax dollars, and our name.
And remember to send the same bunch of bottom feeding scum-bags back to Washington next election day.
The cover up of these photos has NOTHING to do with keeping our troops safe. It has everything to do with keeping bush admistration officials from facing war crimes prosecution.
The cover up of these photos has NOTHING to do with keeping our troops or the American people safe. Who would cruise the Med on the Achille Largo now? It has everything to do with keeping bush admistration officials and their congressional supporters from facing war crimes prosecution.
Yes and we stood by impotent and did nothing. So there were some mass protest from time to time, some supported the other choice in 2004, we are all guilty! I am too. You are also. We didn't do enough - putting a cup of water on a burning house and saying "well I done my part" is no excuse.
This begs the question "Are those with greater knowledge more responsible to do more in times of crises?" I would say yes we are. I am sick with anger, crying without tears, still with profound sadness as an American who stood by and looking back did so little to stop the horrors perpetrated by my government, in my name, for their greed.
Worst of all this nightmare has not stopped, the wars are still raging strong, folks are dying, babies, kids, old people, disabled, and the extreme poor are being raped of their future as I write this. I feel sadder thinking about all that is horribly wrong with America and me!
nicholas101, your integrity runs deep.
I too am ashamed I've done nothing. Acts of kindness within our borders ameliorate not the misery and death the US inflicts with the Aid of Our/My personal Silence and Failure to ACT.
CommonDreamers, will ANYONE meet me in SF and be willing to get arrested for our beliefs? Block traffic, protest, the Chronicle will cover it, maybe a wire-service would pick it up.
I know 50 committed people could make national headlines, raise consciousness without violence, felonies or anger. And the misdeamenor charges would be dropped.
50 people. 6th & Market. 8:00 am, march, cops get wierd, step up on the sidewalk, hand them flowers, tell 'em to join us and step back in the street....... veterans would join us, others.
ANYONE who would follow up on my sf thought can email me at jcotton21 at gmail.com. Late summer? We'd get processed out then could party & strategize. I would bring some refreshments, a legal pad and ideas. Peaceful but powerful ideas.
Help! joe....
Very well put, nicholas101! There's been plenty of blame thrown around: People who voted for Bush, people who voted for Nader, people who voted for Congressional Democrats who enable Bush, people who voted for Obama, and people who don't vote. All of this is counterproductive as it misses the point that we are all responsible.
The only thing that will prevent this from happening again is if the whole world and particularly the American people get to see what our government does when they think they can get away with it. Most people in Germany today, as far as I can tell, are quite conscious and sensitive about protecting the right of others could be attributed to the fact that they were forced to look upon what once took place. Now we are more like they were before their awakening. Protecting our country from the criticism that is due us will not make the world a safer place to live, nor will it make the American people safer. Already many of our rights and freedom have been taken away. Our right to hear and see the truth about what our government does behind our back is now on the chopping block.
Yes lets keep our eyes on the continuing slaughter.
Every USA soldier should refuse to be a War Criminal in Afghanistan and Iraq.
How can someone who ran a flawless campaign be totally stupid when it comes to protecting the Neo Con War Criminals?
because those neo-con war criminals helped to put him in office.
One might wonder, mow amd then, why, despite our sexual hangups, it's worse to rape a child than to burn him up with white phopherous, blow his arms and legs, blind him, shoot him, starve him, or do any of the other large numbers of atrocities inflicted on children -- many of them quite deliberately and methodially. This criminal and sociopathic horror the US has pursued -- continues to pursue -- is not truly appropriate for comparing this atrocity with that one.
It may be the greatest indictment of Americans that cries of outrage depend on offending one's own particular sensitivity instead of having an empathetic ability to see and hear what the victims have been expressing all along. So, dear reader, would you prefer to be raped or have your face torn off? Doesn't seem like much of a choice to me.
"A senior military officer told me that . . . Pentagon officials engaged in strange maneuvers to avoiding viewing the pictures."
Shouldn't that read "Pentagon officials engaged in strange maneuvers WHILE viewing the pictures."?
How much longer will we tolerate allowing war crimes to go unpunished? Not only our torture, but our wars of aggression and retaliation/collective punishment and our occupations are war crimes.
Obama and all who refuse to prosecute these crimes are accessories after the fact. And by funding these illegal wars and occupations, our Congress is complicit in these crimes.
When a president and most of both chambers of Congress are complicit in war crimes, and do nothing to stop them from continuing, government of law, let alone democracy, is dead.
Why are we NOT in the streets, shouting and banging on pots, as so many South Americans did when their governments descended into lawlessness?
War=Torture. Why even be shocked? War makes people crazy, that is one of it's natural effects. Why are we so wanting to see pictures of what these monsters have done to their victims? We know that War is Torture on a massive scale. People are so good at seeing things in the micro, it's a bit more difficult for us to wrap our brains around the macro, but lets be real, here. War cannot be seperated from the horror that it is, specific acts should come as no surprise. It is, indeed, sickening, and good hearted people like nicholas101 feel so horrible about it, and so powerless to stop the agony and destruction, that it makes us sick and guilty and self condemning. Nicholas, You would never hurt someone the way that these f.g monsters are hurting them and us, you would never kill someone, or starve them, or deny them the rights that they should be afforded as humans.. why blame yourself? This situation is perpetuated because we know that our government could blow us up, or put drugs in our food and water, or inject our children with carcinogens, or round us all up and put us into camps. We already have the highest percentage of people locked in prison in the world, and they could do it to all of us. We are clearly not dealing with normal, humane, or kind individuals. These are crazy people. It isn't supposed to make sense to us, it is supposed to make us ill and scared and feeble. To blame ourselves is retroactive. It isn't my fault, and it isn't yours. We have to become stronger than that, blame is not the answer, growth, coordination, and action are.
Peace, Commondreamers!
Good point Reverend,
But we need to bring out the guilt of these despicable acts so that the "Bush-Corporate-Cannibal-Tribe" can be exposed for what it is. You are so right, that once they get away with it overseas, that it is a shorter trip back into a domestic government job where they can practice more of the same on unsuspecting US citizens.
War for profit is not a birthright. Even if you are a Skull and Bonesmen.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
"War for profit is not a birthright."
not unless you're the USofA.
The American government has always maintained the right of its citizens to ship arms to belligerents. President Washington took this position when France protested against the sale of arms to England in 1793, the answer being that "the exporting from the United States of warlike instruments and military stores is not to be interfered with." - Theodore Roosevelt's "Fear God..."p.160
Gun runners from the getgo!
What is wrong with "bearing arms"? Or selling them for that matter?
The second amendment guarantees citizens this right to keep and bear arms.
No citizen that I have ever heard of can "ship arms to belligerents" as you claim. That is the realm of corporations.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
That is not my claim - the words were those of Teddy Roosevelt.
The right to bear arms does not make it right to bear arms.
(Those are my words - from a good conscience.)
There will come a day when this truth will be enshrined not only in law but in common sense.
You raise another point:
Due to a 19th century clerical error, corporations have enjoyed all the privileges of personhood, but with none of the responsibilities.
So vdb, you want a world, if I understand you correctly, where only the gov is armed.
Absolutely against the common sense of the founding fathers. They knew, as I know, that if law enforcement feels they can get away with abuse, they will do so routinely. Guns must be local. They must be in the hands of the common citizen.
From wiki:
Views on the carrying of arms
Jefferson's commitment to liberty extended to many areas of individual freedom. In his "commonplace book," he copied a passage from Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria related to the issue of gun control. The quote reads, "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."[48][49][50]
View on corporations
Jefferson in 1816 wrote to George Logan,
“
In this respect England exhibits the most remarkable phenomenon in the universe in the contrast between the profligacy of it's government and the probity of it's citizens. And accordingly it is now exhibiting an example of the truth of the maxim that virtue & interest are inseparable. It ends, as might have been expected, in the ruin of it's people, but this ruin will fall heaviest, as it ought to fall on that hereditary aristocracy which has for generations been preparing the catastrophe. I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in it's birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.[51]
”
Views on the judiciary
Trained as a lawyer, Jefferson was a gifted writer but never a good speaker or advocate and never comfortable in court. He believed that judges should be technical specialists but should not set policy. He denounced the 1803 Supreme Court ruling in Marbury v. Madison as a violation of democracy, but he did not have enough support in Congress to propose a Constitutional amendment to overturn it. He continued to oppose the doctrine of judicial review:
“
To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.[52]
”
Views on rebellion to restrain government and retain individual rights
After the Revolutionary War, Jefferson advocated restraining government via rebellion and violence when necessary, in order to protect individual freedoms. In a letter to James Madison on January 30, 1787, Jefferson wrote, "A little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical…It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."[53] Similarly, in a letter to Abigail Adams on February 22, 1787 he wrote, "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all."[53]
Concerning Shays' Rebellion after he had heard of the bloodshed, on November 13, 1787 Jefferson wrote to William S. Smith, John Adams' son-in-law, "What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."[54] In another letter to William S. Smith during 1787, Jefferson wrote:
“And what country can preserve its liberties, if the rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."[53]
- Thomas Jefferson
WE might not need to see the pictures, but half the country thinks torture is OK.
A few gruesome photos will force them to confront this reality. That's why the Pentagon is so adamant about keeping them hidden. The visceral effect on people will be disgust, shame, and horror.
As Rev says, these people aren't normal. They are insane; drunk with power.
The US ruling classes are the most dangerous people on earth and nothing can stop them.
I think you underestimate the nefarious thought process that makes torture okay in some eyes. There is a good possibility that the photos will reinforce their view.
I can see these torture photos replacing baseball cards.
Collect the entire set; trade them with your friends and neighbors.
exactly
Then make them defend rape. PUBLICLY. Make those who believe that torture is acceptable, defend rape in public. Make them argue that rape is necessary to protect western society, western values, western civilisation.
Bobv.
Yes, I know, you are right.
There are definitely some people who will not have a problem with torture, ever.
But, I think it will anger and repulse a majority of people who so far have refused to accept the evil enormity of what actually happened.
then we must come up with another way to make them aware other than re-victimizing the victims.
These guys are so desperate for a real war! Not that tit for tat stuff, no a real one -- like world war two -- where everyone gets involved.
With the silence of American people on their side, they will likely get that war sooner or later.
Wait for it!!!!! Korea!
North Korea will be the catalyst that will throw us into a major confrontation and possibly WWIII with China and Russia.
Come on, Obama supporters, who wants to defend him now?
Come on, Craig "this is our moment!" Brown, tell us how to make Obama end torture and prosecute the torturers. Because right now he's doing the opposite.
Everyone who felt Obama would listen to progressives (the old "hold his feet to the fire" argument) tell us what your plan is now? Because Obama is ignoring you.
The same goes for the kind folks advocating "People Power" and parades. It's not working. So what's your plan now?
Because Obama is ignoring you.
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”
like - voting . . .
snydly
And all for oil.
OIL.
snydly May 29th, 2009 7:18 pm.........Oil is big part of it, amigo...but it goes beyond that.......one of the many pieces of the DEVIL'S JIGSAW puzzle........
http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/
Collateral_Damage_911.pdf
www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/
Collateral_Damage_Part_II_26122008.pdf
What does that mean? "The Daily Beast has confirmed the photographs of abuses..." I don't see the photographs that go with the descriptions in the article. Who took these photos and why and where are they and why can't everyone see them? I don't really want to see them, but we must all face this. I am so disgusted and horrified, but what about other Americans who do not dig into alternative news sources? Isn't there some way these photographs can be forced on the public? Ignorance is bliss.
...and another thing. Where are all my fellow Christians, no matter what denomination or none, in all of this? Too busy shoring up your edifices?... Thank God for Bishop Desmond Tutu.
“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”
If you're continuing to have taxes withheld from your paycheck, you must ask yourself, Why? The federal government is mostly dysfunctional, and needs to be drowned in Norquist's bathtub, but for reasons quite different from his.
All of the activities and more are shown here. But the crux of the situation is that these atrocities are committed by (1) hired thugs and/or (2) American soldiers.
A vast boycott should be instituted by refusal of all those horrified by these obscene activites to pay taxes on the financing of these activities. Since we don't know the extent of these costs, all Americans owing money at the end of the year should deduct 20% of his taxes owed as a disapproval of their being spent for mistreatment of others. Those who pay their bills in toto should deduct 20% from the bottom line for the same reason. Perhaps millions of us would be prosecuted, but I doubt it. There is strength in numbers. The money so deducted should be deposited in an account to: (1) deter enlistments of those who are enlisting solely for the money and/or (2) as an expense not approved by the American people under our Constitution. Can the government realistically jail twenty million or thirty million American dissenters? I don't think so. Part of the money should be reserved to defeat any government we elect that includes funds to imprison and/or torture enemy non-combatants or civilians.
Just a desperate idea, but we have to do something to make our government come to its senses -- if possible.
So what are you proposing busterkikki?
That everyone claim 99 exemptions on their W-4 so that withholding does not occur? Interesting Idea. But I can see them simply eliminating the W-4 with the stroke of a pen; and then we are unable to stop paying taxes.
What about this idea? Since they are diluted anyway, stop accepting US dollars as legal tender. Trade garden veggies for tractor work, or trade home preserves for carpentry work. Refuse to participate with the molopolies that have hijacked our government. Barter with the small guy in town. No receipts mean no sales tax.
Once the government honors the constitution and gives "redress of greivances" we would again accept worthless paper dollars that are backed up by nothing.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
"All of the activities and more are shown here. But the crux of the situation is that these atrocities are committed by (1) hired thugs and/or (2) American soldiers."
Wrong. The crux of the situation is that torture was approved by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet, and their lieutenants. Torture was carried out by individual thugs, but the skids were created and greased by the above-mentioned war criminals. To focus on the trees is to close one's eyes.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html
"Can the government realistically jail twenty million or thirty million American dissenters?"
Google: FEMA camps
vdb May 30th, 2009 2:50 am..........These are FEAR tactics. It will never happen, but most Americans will go along with fear tactics as an excuse. They are NOT going to jail MILLIONS of protestors. Have more faith in your fellow American. Do you truly believe they will turn on their own friends and family? And do not tell me about mercenaries. With millions of Americans on the march, believe me, THEY will be the ones in fear. BUT, do not worry...the numbers will not be there...we're simply cowards.....but this is what no one wishes to hear. We sit as children are tortured in our name....how much more proof do we need???
"Support our troops". ?
Okay, we locked them up without charges but we didn't torture them.
Okay, we tortured them but we didn't rape them.
Okay, we raped them but we didn't kill them.
Okay, we killed them but we didn't desecrate their corpses.
Wait for it.....
Okay, we.......
damn ctrl-z, it saddens me to think you do not trust and love our dear leaders and their plans for us. Because our government is here to help us, the Earth, and people everywhere on it.
I have no interest in seeing these photographs!!
I also question the need to make them more public.
There is a strong case to be made that sharing the photograhps widely among the American people will:
1. Fail to produce any prosecution of the guilty parties.
2. Further humiliate the prisoners who may be recognizable in the pictures. They now must live with the knowledge that their faces & naked bodies are splashed across the Internet.
3. Eventually diminish our own & the public's outrage by "normalizing" the ugly scenes of torture depicted here.
4. Make us complicit (psychologically) in the torture as we fully participate as an extended audience to prisoner abuse.
I rarely see these points discussed.
Most here on CD assume that wide publication is desirable.
I would much rather see prosecution take place- of Bush, Cheney, et. al.
We already know enough to understand that crimes were committed and by whom.
These semi-pornagraphic photographs are overkill in the deepest sense of the word.
I happen to believe that if the photos were released it would force conservatives and republicans/democrats to face the truth. How can a person in 'good conscience' deny that rape and sodomy fall well outside the bounds of "enhanced interrogation"? Unless the photos are released the majority of Americans will not understand what really happened.
"How can a person in 'good conscience' deny that rape and sodomy fall well outside the bounds of "enhanced interrogation"?"
You assume that people who either support torture or remain insistent in avoiding any consideration that their tax dollars pay for it are people of "good conscience"
I will try to answer your points, from my viewpoint.
1.Those of us who post here on CD certainly agree that crimes were committed, by whom, and that all perpetrators should be prosecuted. How many citizens of the US, agree with this? How many citizens of the US believe that torture is justified? In that recent Pew poll, 49%. People need to be forced to SEE, literally, the realities of torture. People need to be forced to SEE, literally, what has been done in their name, ostensibly to protect them.
2. What if the publication of the pictures leads to outrage, and prosecution of the perpetrators? Would it ameliorate some of your concern if faces of the victims are blurred out? Or if they are consulted about their views on the publications of the pictures?
3. Tt is definitely a concern. The problem is that, at least if the Pew poll is reliable, the public's outrage is already diminished. 49% believe that torture is acceptable. Again, people need to be forced to confront what has happened. Those who support torture need to be forced to try to defend rape.
4. The rape, the torture, was done in the name of (western) civilisation. To ostensibly protect western "values", and "western" identity from the evil Muslim terrorists. As someone who cherishes and treasures actual western values that many have fought so hard for over the centuries, I consider myself already complicit.