Unreleased Abu Graib Photos Show Sexual Abuse, Including Rape
Gen. Antonio Taguba, author of the investigative report about violations of human rights at Abu Ghraib, has now given an interview to the British paper, the Telegraph, in which he acknowledges that, among the approximately 2,000 photographs of detainee abuse that Pres. Barack Obama refused to release, is photographic evidence of U.S. soldiers raping and sexually abusing detainees:
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.
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.”
But not horrendous enough, apparently, to put our troops at heightened risk of attack in “theaters of war” — they are safe from the anger of the locals in Afghanistan and Iraq as long as no one sees those pictures.
Larisa Alexandrovna thinks some of the photos may be among those already shown at Salon and at CBS back in 2006. She posts two, and links to the others:
I am only going to post two of the ones I believe are being discussed. When Dick Cheney defends his policy of torture, remember, he is defending this. When you tell people they can cross the line into cruelty, you have given them permission to engage in what you are about to see. That is what happens when legal controls are taken off and that is why Dick Cheney and George W. Bush are directly responsible for these rapes.
The images are incredibly graphic. I am only posting two because I cannot stand to look through more of them to find the others. I had actually seen some of these several years back when I was contacted to do a story. I flew to the meeting. I sat through the meeting. I looked at the photos. I excused myself and went out the front door and vomited all over myself. I knew I did not have the strength to write this story. So I hope no one thinks, not even for a moment, that I am in any way taking the posting of these photos lightly. They are horrific. But they are the truth and they must be seen.
Nick Baumann asks why the mere existence of these photos is not sufficient to trigger prosecution:
Gen. Taguba says he supports President Obama’s decision to withold the photos, arguing that “The mere description of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it.” Fine—the debate over whether to release the photos is legitimate. I have a more immediate question. If the government is in possession of photographic evidence of an American soldier raping someone, has that soldier been prosecuted? The relevant section of the Uniform Code of Military Justice is here:
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who commits an act of sexual intercourse with a female not his wife, by force and without consent, is guilty of rape and shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
It would take a pretty incompetent prosecution to fail to convict someone of a rape for which there is clear photographic evidence. …
TBogg notices the “radio silence on the story from the war cheerleaders and torture aficionados.”
Obviously this [is] a delicate matter that will require real finesse when the time comes to explain it away but I’m confident that a crack team of Republican Euphemism Wordsmiths (cough*MichaelGerson*cough) are working overtime to create the proper, um, nomenclature for the Special Ed, the Powerline Stooges, and the Jammie Wearing Gateway Confederate Yankee RS McCain RedState Strike Force blog ninjas.
I don’t know what the excuse is for all of the above advocates of liberation, freedom, and democracy, but Erick Erickson may be too busy right now exhorting movement conservatives not to deny and betray “their own” (as in Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney) — as the apostle Peter denied Christ.
28 Responses to “Unreleased Abu Graib Photos Show Sexual Abuse, Including Rape”
Nice.
I'm sure Dick Cheney knew nothing of this while it was happening, nor would he turn a blind eye..
[I like being sarcastic now and then]
“…why the mere existence of these photos is not sufficient to trigger prosecution”
Yes, yes, yes. How is it that this prosecution, or at least an investigation, is not happening right now? There are so many reasons why investigating torture is vitally important, not the least of which is the fact that we are obligated by treaty to do so.
I listened to Gibbs press conference today, and he was pretty adamant this story is false.
Yes, I heard that, too, DaGoat. Gibbs told the reporters what the Pentagon told him (and presumably Obama), but I take the Pentagon's denials with a Mount Everest-sized mountain of grains of salt. Those photos published in Salon and shown on CBS, of which Larisa Alexandrovna posted two on her blog, show *something.* If what I'm seeing in those photos is not rape and/or sexual abuse, then the Pentagon needs to explain why the hell my brain is telling my eyes that they're seeing naked females lying on the floor being abused.
I followed a couple of the links through this post and came to the following link….. (Photos are in the links on the left- pretty graphic, so don't go there if you're faint of heart).
I don't know if anyone else clicked through to these but these are pretty horrible and should be seen so we all know what actions the Bush administration found acceptable (until they were caught). Keep in mind that this was in the early part of the invasion of Iraq and al Qaeda was not operating there (yet). So the Bush administration can't even claim that they were trying to get information to keep Americans safe. Also the soldiers really seem to be enjoying themselves… Not the atmosphere one would expect from an interrogation to obtain vital information to America's security.
http://www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14…
I don't know which would freak me out the most… But being naked with dogs biting me, unable to protect myself is at the top of the list.. along with everything else here.
There is no excuse for these abuses and I don't condone them in any way. Are these just more of the same published in the Salon article? You guys do know that the solders in these photo's were convicted back in 2005 right? If there are crimes photographed them there should of been prosecutions brought for them.
Kathy – I have said constantly that any actions that exceed the authorities outlined in the memo's defining the limits of enhanced interrogation should be prosecuted, and without full context, some of these pictures do indeed seem to show behavior well beyond that authority.
I do not, however, see any pictures that seem to show 'rape'. Which ones are you referring to?
AR,
There are only two photos that I pointed to, and it's unclear what they show beyond clear and obvious sexual abuse. Obviously, one cannot say with certitude that a rape is taking place; on the other hand, one cannot rule that out, either. One of them shows what appears to be a man standing over a woman. Both are naked. The second shows a woman lying naked on the floor. She looks horribly injured, but it's hard to tell details. Why is she on the floor? What happened to her? Clearly, some kind of sexual abuse is taking place. So, yes, although these two photos (among many more at Salon; I haven't had the courage to look at those others yet) do not definitively show rape, they certainly suggest that that is what is taking place or has taken place.
Kathy and StockBoy seem to have it firmly set in their minds that George Bush and Dick Cheney knew of and authorized the abuse of prisoners at Abu Graib by certain National Guard members.
They ignore the fact that the guilty parties have been tried and convicted for these actions, insisting that there “needs to be an investigation” and thus the release of inflammatory pictures is necessary.
(Sigh)
Is there no limit to the hatred liberals feel towards the military? Even though it’s recognized in all quarters that publishing these pictures will directly cause the injury and death of soldiers, the left wing seems to believe the political benefits of making a tenuous link to the previous administration is worth the costs.
What type of people are these? How can they live with themselves?
Kathy by focusing on the Pentagon you are ignoring that Gibbs/Obama are saying this story is false. Are you trying to say that the Pentagon is lying to Obama? Obama has had the opportunity to see the pictures, he is the president after all.
It seems to me the left is trying to have it both ways, simultaneously trying to say the Telegraph story is true and also protecting Obama.
I am retired military and I don't “hate the military”
Ant that is the only, the only reason I would not want those photos published: because of the danger such an action would subject our military in Iraq and Afghanistan to.
Setting that one very valid argument aside, the fact that we are ashamed of having those photos published says a lot in itself.
And, yes, I can live with myself.
Dorian,
You show a rare degree of logic, grasp of the facts and a concern for soldiers not found in many liberals.
By realizing that the harm releasing these photos would do far exceeds any momentary political points one could score by conflating this conduct with legitimate enhanced interrogation techniques, you prove that trying to reason with liberals is not a lost cause.
If only you ran the NY Times, the country would be better off.
I am filled with Hope.
Kathy by focusing on the Pentagon you are ignoring that Gibbs/Obama are saying this story is false. Are you trying to say that the Pentagon is lying to Obama?
Ummm, yeeaahh…. And I take it that possibility comes as a shock to you?
Obama has had the opportunity to see the pictures, he is the president after all.
What a jaw-dropping statement. I don't know what I can say in reply to this, DaGoat. No words of mine could possibly be equal to the task of responding to this sentiment if, as I assume is the case, you were alive during the last eight years. What I mean is, if you did live in a conscious,sentient state through the last eight years, and can still make the assumption implied in that sentence, then anything else I might say would be a waste of time.
I can not let this one slide:
“Is there no limit to the hatred liberals feel towards the military?”
This is not only a blatant blanket lie, but a cowardly and despicable insult to the millions of patriotic, American Liberals who love their country and love their military–including those thousands of Liberal heroes who at this very moment are serving their country themselves and are in harms way.
What a jaw-dropping statement. I don't know what I can say in reply to this, DaGoat. No words of mine could possibly be equal to the task of responding to this sentiment if, as I assume is the case, you were alive during the last eight years. What I mean is, if you did live in a conscious,sentient state through the last eight years, and can still make the assumption implied in that sentence, then anything else I might say would be a waste of time.
Since you've resorted to insults I can assume I've asked a difficult question. Are you saying Obama has not seen the pictures, and he is merely a dupe of the Pentagon?
Dorian, Dorian…….Dorian,
You had such a good grasp of reality for a moment. Oh well…..
Now you want to believe that the left is more identifiable with the people being spat on instead of the people doing the spitting. You wish to imagine millions of patriotic liberals who love the military instead of admitting the reality that liberals mock, look down on and barely tolerate the armed forces.
No doubt there are thousands of Obama voters in the military today, swept up in the moment and counted as “liberals”. If asked their positions on the major issues, these volunteers would no doubt exhibit tendencies more conservative than anything.
Dorian, you must realize what an oddity you are. You are a true believer of the left, while most democrat veterans find themselves in the party for political expediency.
You need to look no further than the article we are commenting on to see the liberal attitude of the military. Kathy would walk to the opposite side of the street to avoid close contact with a soldier, as most liberals would. The hate is palpable. The superiority liberals feel towards the troops is sickening.
How you ever hoped to argue the opposite is beyond imagination.
Dorian -
You cannot deny there IS a significant number of Liberals that do indeed hate the military. One need look no further than some of the actions at the Berkeley recruiting office, or the 'General Betrayus' advertisements, or many, many other examples.
That said, the converse is also true, as you point out. There are plenty of Liberals who do believe in a strong military, and support them wholeheartedly.
But as often happens, the vocal and visible elements create the stronger impression.
Are you saying Obama has not seen the pictures, and he is merely a dupe of the Pentagon?
Uhhh, no. I am responding to your suggestion, contained in this statement — “Kathy by focusing on the Pentagon you are ignoring that Gibbs/Obama are saying this story is false. — that if Gibbs/Obama say the story is false, then that is definitive. I mean, there is so much subtext in that one statement of yours that it's a bit complicated to sort it all out. But basically you appear to be tacitly agreeing that the Pentagon might lie but Gibbs/Obama never would — and that being the case, it's wrong of me to focus on the Pentagon because I'm ignoring the fact that Gibbs/Obama said the story was false, so even if it might have been reasonable to question the Pentagon's veracity on this story, once Gibbs/Obama said it was false, that makes the Pentagon irrelevant because Gibbs/Obama said the story was false, so the story is false. I should take it on faith that Gibbs/Obama would never say anything that wasn't true. And that notion strikes me as being bizarre and weird beyond belief (and I'm sorry, but that's how it strikes me), because I don't even begin to understand how any thinking person can continue to ascribe that level of blind, unquestioning belief that our government leaders would not mislead or lie to us.
At the same time, on another level, I am taking from your statement a suggestion that Obama himself should accept what he is told by the Pentagon at face value. That is pretty clearly what he has done in this case — how else could he say so flatly that the story is false? These events took place long before he was president. He is obviously relying on the Pentagon's assurances to make an immediate statement to the press, just minutes after the story breaks, that it's false. How can he responsibly do that?
AR:
Another reasoned comment. Thanks.
Of course, there may be some Liberals who “hate the military,” just as there may be some Conservatives who are bigots.
But by no stretch of the imagination, or common decency, would that ever justify a blanket statement such as, “Is there no limit to the hatred Conservatives feel towards blacks?”
Dorian
“Of course, there may be some Liberals who “hate the military,” just as there may be some Conservatives who are bigots.”
Now that you realize your initial argument is untenable, you seek parity with this? A rationalization that the two could possibly equal each other?
Good lord.
Yes, there are some conservatives who are bigots. I tend to believe there are more liberals that are bigots, but that’s another argument. But even you, if you want to maintain a modicum of intellectual honesty, have to admit the bulk of liberals are anti-military.
Before you reply, think about the statement:
“…….the bulk of liberals are anti-military.”
Breaking this down it means the majority of liberals (not democrats or democrat voting public in the past election) hate the military. By hating the military, I mean in a San Francisco,” don’t come near me you inferior being” sort of way.
My complete comment was, and is:
Of course, there may be some Liberals who “hate the military,” just as there may be some Conservatives who are bigots.
But by no stretch of the imagination, or common decency, would that ever justify a blanket statement such as, “Is there no limit to the hatred Conservatives feel towards blacks?”
jwest — Even in San Francisco, most of us hippy-pinko-commies love our troops, most of us know someone in the armed forces, many of us have loved ones over seas right now. And even for those of us on the extreme left, our hatred for the wars is not because we hate the troops, it is because we hate seeing them put into harms way to assuage the wiles of a president we didn't trust, we hate to see the effects of the poor/non-existant strategy on the countries they are in, we hate seeing dishonest and money-hungry contracting companies get rich off no-bid contracts while our loved ones are over there working for pennies, et cetera, ad nauseum.
In the spirit of comity, I herby modify my original statement of:
“Is there no limit to the hatred liberals feel towards the military?”
To:
Is there no limit to the hatred most liberals feel towards the military?
jwest — what “evidence” do you have? Your absolute knowledge that all liberals are evil ? I friggin live there. I certainly wouldn't call it “pro-military”, but there's a huge gap between disliking a lot of things about the way our national defense is run and hating the troops. As someone with loved ones over seas right now, a few loved ones who have left our earth because of this and past wars, and one other who has returned with dire injuries that will never fully heal, I am deeply offended by you.
I have you lived in SF Unfortunately, it DOES have to be characterized as not just anti-war, but anti-military:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=…
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Ar…
It used to be a strong military town, with large Army (Presidio) and Naval (Alameda, Hunter's Point, Moffett, Treasure Island and Mare Island) presence. But they have left, in no small part due to ever increasing hostility towards them.
Sorry roro – got to disagree with you on this one. See my post below yours.
“I am deeply offended by you.”
I am deeply offended by the residents of San Francisco for their blatant anti-military position as demonstrated by their support for the elected officials of the city.
Roro, you’re in a no-win position here. Regardless of how many of your family and close friends are supposedly serving the country, if the consensus of opinion in San Francisco wasn’t one of distain for soldiers they (and you) would have voted out the moonbat crazies who run your fair city.
When you walk into your next San Francisco dinner party, or when you enjoy a drink at one of the clubs in town, speak up about your great respect for our soldiers.
Once the laughter dies down, explain that you’re serious. Tell everyone you believe people in the military are just as smart, just as sensitive and enlightened as anyone in the room with you.
I doubt you’ll be invited out again. At least until you agree to some sort of therapy.
Liberals specialize in being “offended”. If it wasn’t for being a victim or being offended by some strawman making someone a victim, liberals would have little to talk about. Don’t deny reality – even in San Francisco truth counts.
I am always amused by the Republicans love of the military.
While their love of the military is without equal, their willingness to serve is highly questionable.
Who served in the military?