These are two of the lesser graphic photos found here.
Posted on 07/23/2005 6:59:19 PM PDT by greatglory
NEW YORK So what is shown on the 87 photographs and four videos from Abu Ghraib prison that the Pentagon, in an eleventh hour move, blocked from release this weekend? One clue: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Congress last year, after viewing a large cache of unreleased images: "I mean, I looked at them last night, and they're hard to believe.” They show acts "that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhumane," he added.
A Republican Senator suggested the same day they contained scenes of “rape and murder.” No wonder Rumsfeld commented then, "If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse."
Yesterday, news emerged that lawyers for the Pentagon had refused to cooperate with a federal judge's order to release dozens of unseen photographs and videos from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq by Saturday. The photos were among thousands turned over by the key “whistleblower” in the scandal, Specialist Joseph M. Darby. Just a few that were released to the press sparked the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal last year, and the video images are said to be even more shocking.
The Pentagon lawyers said in a letter sent to the federal court in Manhattan that they would file a sealed brief explaining their reasons for not turning over the material. They had been ordered to do so by a federal judge in response to a FOIA lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU accused the government Friday of putting another legal roadblock in the way of its bid to allow the public to see the images of the prisoner abuse scandal.
One Pentagon lawyer has argued that they should not be released because they would only add to the humiliation of the prisoners. But the ACLU has said the faces of the victims can easily be "redacted."
To get a sense of what may be shown in these images, one has to go back to press reports from when the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal was still front page news.
This is how CNN reported it on May 8, 2004, in a typical account that day:
“U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld revealed Friday that videos and ‘a lot more pictures’ exist of the abuse of Iraqis held at Abu Ghraib prison.
"’If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse,’ Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee. ‘I mean, I looked at them last night, and they're hard to believe.’
“The embattled defense secretary fielded sharp and skeptical questions from lawmakers as he testified about the growing prisoner abuse scandal. A military report about that abuse describes detainees being threatened, sodomized with a chemical light and forced into sexually humiliating poses.
“Charges have been brought against seven service members, and investigations into events at the prison continue.
“Military investigators have looked into -- or are continuing to investigate -- 35 cases of alleged abuse or deaths of prisoners in detention facilities in the Central Command theater, according to Army Secretary Les Brownlee. Two of those cases were deemed homicides, he said.
"’The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience,’ Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told reporters after Rumsfeld testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. ’We're talking about rape and murder -- and some very serious charges.’
“A report by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba on the abuse at the prison outside Baghdad says videotapes and photographs show naked detainees, and that groups of men were forced to masturbate while being photographed and videotaped. Taguba also found evidence of a ‘male MP guard having sex with a female detainee.’
“Rumsfeld told Congress the unrevealed photos and videos contain acts 'that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman.’”
The military later screened some of the images for lawmakers, who said they showed, among other things, attack dogs snarling at cowed prisoners, Iraqi women forced to expose their breasts, and naked prisoners forced to have sex with each other.
In the same period, reporter Seymour Hersh, who helped uncover the scandal, said in a speech before an ACLU convention: “Some of the worse that happened that you don't know about, ok? Videos, there are women there. Some of you may have read they were passing letters, communications out to their men….The women were passing messages saying ‘Please come and kill me, because of what's happened.’
“Basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys/children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. The worst about all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror it's going to come out.”
If the pictures prove true, we should ensure full prosecution.
Releasing the pictures, though, would be counterproductive. I think the photos could remain classified evidence.
Convict (if necessary), and classify. No need to hand the bad guys propoganda just because we've got a few bad eggs we will control.
They considier their murderers martyrs. We consider our murderers prisoners.
But I'll be honest, putting the story out there as if it is nothing more than mean pranks is the problem I have. I feel like a total a$$ for cheering on those soldiers for giving them a little "harmless" humiliation.
But, I agree that it's not something that should be published so that the "enemy" (terrorists or dems) can use to incite deadly riots, etc.
Some of the videos show orgies with leash girl and the night shift. Also, it shows some of the immates doing it with her.
Parts of the videos has filtered down in the military community. Totally disgusting things.
#1. Senators and Congressmen already saw all of these pictures and videos over a year ago. They weren't all released to the public at the time (in fact, none of them were released to the public. The few that were on 60 Minutes, in newspapers etc. that we all saw were the ones that were leaked) but all members of Congress saw them. They are all from the same single batch taken at the same time (2 years ago) involving the same small group of soldiers. Therefore there is nothing "new" here to anyone who was paying attention.
#2. Seymour Hersch's comments can be dismissed out of hand because he routinely exaggerates and lies.
#3. Senator Graham's comments about "rape and murder" were made BEFORE he saw the photos and videos with the rest of Congress. He said that based on things he had heard, rumors, not things he had seen. After members of Congress saw the full spectrum of photos/short videos, they said they were disgusted but when pressed by members of the press as to whether the photos were significantly worse or shocking than the ones already seen, most said "no", they were generally along the same lines as the ones already seen but it was mostly the quantity and viewing them one after the other for an hour or so that was so disturbing.
#4. Rumsfeld's comments, again over a year ago, about "sadistic" behavior is generally about the kind of behavior we already knew about, nudity, some beatings, dogs, sexual poses, etc.
#5. The reason not to release these photos is that they do not advance the story. The ACLU claims they want them released to prove that these weren't "isolated incidents". But since these are the same batch of photos taken by the same small group during the same narrow time window as the ones we already saw, they don't advance that story at all. The only thing served by releasing these photos would be prurient interest and anti-Americanism. Because you know that if Al Jazeera, etc (not to mention our own MSM) gets a hold of them they will intro them as "new Abu Ghraib photos" and most people around the world will think these are a new set of photos taken recently. Nothing could be farther from the truth or more harmful to our troops on the ground.
Already done. These are the same pictures taken 2 years ago and used in prosecutions last year.
The very first set of photos released by the Washington Past and 60 Minutes showed simulated fellatio, beatings, and dead bodies. There's no way you could not know of those and yet claim to be offended if these unreleased photos show more than "panties on the head."
How does releasing these make us more secure or more knowledgeable?
There you go...
And it didn't take Solomon.
In before the ZOT! Makes my weekend!
Do the names "Juanita Broaddrick" and "Eileen Wellstone" mean anything to you?
Sounds like aa troll to me.
'Dems are at it again' means that the release of these photos is being driven mercilessly by Dems, who could care less about any of the 'victims', and who only want to use these photos to harm President Bush, Karl Rove, and the image of the USA worldwide. The Dems would rape their own children if they thought it would bring us all down.
And who told you that it was just frat boy pranks? I know that some of it was portrayed that way by some commentators, but the day after day after day after day coverage by the msm portrayed this as the greatest horror since the holoucast. Most of it was roughing up, minor assault, scaring with dogs and humiliation. They should have been lined up and shot. As I recall an iraqi general died(not sure if this was at abu gharib at this time). No tears for him. Please remember that these were hardened terrorists who had just rioted and attacked guards during a very difficult period in the war.
If there is new stuff, and remeber the left has been alleging this since the beginning without showing proof, I know that it is not the norm for the most honorable military in the worl. I also trust that if crimes occurred they will be appropriately dealt with.
That being said if these pictures and videos exist, show them only if you show at the same time, the hundreds of videos of the torture and beheadings by the enemy.
Smile. You're on Candid Camera.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4177911&mesg_id=4178273
The problem I have with all this, is that we get bits and pieces. We don't know the whole story, we just get the most sensational. We get different people providing different accounts of things that went on. Then we're supposed to know the whole story and make assessments.
Am I somewhat troubled by some of these accounts? Yes. Do I know enough to truly make an accurate assessment? No.
I don't want to become barbarian to stop barbarians. I do however recognize that our military are having to deal with an almost impossible situation, weighing their actions against the potential threat.
What would you allow if it meant stopping the deaths of 250 thousand people? That's a pretty tough question to answer. Our military is having to do that. I am not going to damn them at every opportunity, even if some abuses do occur. I expect the military to intervene when things have gone too far. It seems to me they are doing so.
I don't think Rumsfeld has given the green light to 'anything goes'.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.