PDA

View Full Version : Obama The photos Obummer is covering up show rape & sexual abuse per military investigator


memyselfI
05-27-2009, 09:06 PM
I've said it about the 'hard core' detainees at Gitmo and it's true here as well, the government's actions are aimed at trying to protect itself and the war crimes it's aware of and refusing to prosecute or outright covering up vs. protecting the country or, in this case, the military.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5395830/Abu-Ghraib-abuse-photos-show-rape.html

BucEyedPea
05-27-2009, 10:06 PM
That is sickening. Is that how our govt uses our gay soldiers? I presume the male on make rape of the boy was not by a heterosexual....and a female taking pictures of it too?

blaise
05-27-2009, 10:50 PM
I've said it about the 'hard core' detainees at Gitmo and it's true here as well, the government's actions are aimed at trying to protect itself and the war crimes it's aware of and refusing to prosecute or outright covering up vs. protecting the country or, in this case, the military.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5395830/Abu-Ghraib-abuse-photos-show-rape.html

He's not trying to protect anyone but himself. The thing about him releasing the photos is he really has nothing to gain. The people he would hurt by doing so aren't any sort of threat to him. All it can do is make a certain number of voters have negative impressions of him as vindictive, and tie this issue to his Presidency in a negative way (and mind you, I'm not saying he's to blame, I'm just talking about P.R.). The number of people that would have that reaction would probably be larger than the number of people that would be swung to his side by him releasing photos. I don't think it's about protecting anyone, ok well maybe to a degree, but I think it's more about votes and image. You might disagree that it would negatively affect his image, but I think on the whole it might- at the very least it's a risk. There's really no risk in not releasing them. The people bothered by not releasing photos are going to vote for him again regardless, in my opinion.

KC native
05-28-2009, 12:10 AM
If these photos do show rape then I'm with him on this. I've not weighed in on this yet because I wasn't happy with his decision to withhold the pics however in light of this I think it's imperative that those photos don't get out for the time being (after we leave Iraq and Afghanistan then they should be released). The pics would serve as a great propaganda tool for jihadists across the globe and would put our troops in more danger.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-28-2009, 12:20 AM
Welcome to yesterdays news, but it used to be merely a conspiracy theory go figure.

jAZ
05-28-2009, 01:12 AM
Welcome to yesterdays news, but it used to be merely a conspiracy theory go figure.
Originally from Sy Hersh back in 2004. Maybe even worse (see below).

If the story is true, people need to go to jail, probably lots of them. But I think it can be done without releasing the photo/video evidence publicly right now. It's a cluster**** all the way around.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/14/193750/666

"Some of the worst things that happened you don't know about, okay? Videos, um, there are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib ... The women were passing messages out saying 'Please come and kill me, because of what's happened' and 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. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It's going to come out."

KILLER_CLOWN
05-28-2009, 01:15 AM
Originally from Sy Hersh back in 2004.

If the story is true, people need to go to jail, but I think it can be done without releasing the evidence publicly right now. It's a cluster**** all the way around.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/14/193750/666

"Some of the worst things that happened you don't know about, okay? Videos, um, there are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib ... The women were passing messages out saying 'Please come and kill me, because of what's happened' and 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. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It's going to come out."

I know i posted articles stating this a while back and no one seemed to care, raping kids in front of their parents? I can't even begin to tell you how disgusting this is. I've heard from military that were over there that private contractors were doing the worst.

jAZ
05-28-2009, 01:15 AM
Originally from Sy Hersh back in 2004. Maybe even worse (see below).

If the story is true, people need to go to jail, probably lots of them. But I think it can be done without releasing the photo/video evidence publicly right now. It's a cluster**** all the way around.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/14/193750/666

"Some of the worst things that happened you don't know about, okay? Videos, um, there are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib ... The women were passing messages out saying 'Please come and kill me, because of what's happened' and 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. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It's going to come out."

So fucking horrible.

Amnorix
05-28-2009, 06:46 AM
If this is true, and gets out, we are so f**ked...

And people definitely will need to go to jail.

***SPRAYER
05-28-2009, 07:01 AM
Originally from Sy Hersh back in 2004. Maybe even worse (see below).

If the story is true, people need to go to jail, probably lots of them. But I think it can be done without releasing the photo/video evidence publicly right now. It's a cluster**** all the way around.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/14/193750/666

"Some of the worst things that happened you don't know about, okay? Videos, um, there are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib ... The women were passing messages out saying 'Please come and kill me, because of what's happened' and 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. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It's going to come out."

Kos Kid!

ROFL

BigRedChief
05-28-2009, 07:28 AM
If this is true, and gets out, we are so f**ked...

And people definitely will need to go to jail.
If true, Anyone who knew about this and anyone who tried to cover it up needs to go to jail.

Donger
05-28-2009, 07:34 AM
I thought Obama said that these photos weren't anything spectacular, or something similar?

BigRedChief
05-28-2009, 07:42 AM
I thought Obama said that these photos weren't anything spectacular, or something similar?
the source of this article is not exactly reliable. It's a british tabloid. So lets not rush to conclusions.

memyselfI
05-28-2009, 07:53 AM
I posted a link to Sy Hersch's article which ALLEGED there were photos back when it was Bush covering it up. Now it's Busch Lite and we have it confirmed by the primary investigator so it's not 'old news.'

The photos should be released and the victim's identities protected. But how we will confirm that the perps have been punished if we have no names or faces to hold accountable?

memyselfI
05-28-2009, 07:57 AM
the source of this article is not exactly reliable. It's a british tabloid. So lets not rush to conclusions.

Uh, the Telegraph is not a tabloid. It's one of largest and more conservative papers in the country. Who could report this that would make you believe it's true? The NY Times? Washington Post? Who?

memyselfI
05-28-2009, 09:50 AM
Obummer is an idiot if he doesn't start letting some of this stuff get out early in his presidency. The longer he waits the more complicit he becomes in the coverup.

http://trueslant.com/jefftietz/2009/05/21/think-you-know-how-bad-gitmo-really-was-a-teenage-detainees-story-part-i/

Direckshun
05-28-2009, 09:51 AM
Duh.

That's kind of why Obama supporters have almost uniformly opposed this decision.

jAZ
05-28-2009, 10:12 AM
Obummer is an idiot if he doesn't start letting some of this stuff get out early in his presidency. The longer he waits the more complicit he becomes in the coverup.

http://trueslant.com/jefftietz/2009/05/21/think-you-know-how-bad-gitmo-really-was-a-teenage-detainees-story-part-i/
First of all, his remarks are about a particular set of photos. These are supposedly videos. I don't know if these images (photos or videos) are among those being discussed or not.

But in any case, he's taking a huge political risk by reversing himself on this issue. If this is true, and the photos underdiscussion are in fact these same ones mentioned by Hersh and here... then his role in the "coverup" is quite deliberate and I would completely support it (for the time being).

It's not like with Bush were the question of hiding his own administration's misdeeds or failures is part of the equation. Clearly this stuff happened on Bush's watch, not Obama's. If he's covering it up for now, it's without that cloud of suspcion that accompanies Bush's decision.

Take away the self interest of Bush protecting Bush, and it's a lot easier to trust that the decision is for the other seemingly reaonable (if debateable) purpose, to protect our troops and the current progress from a powder keg of a situation.

I'm ok with that, for now.

***SPRAYER
05-28-2009, 10:12 AM
kOZ

Direckshun
05-28-2009, 10:19 AM
It should be mentioned that photos showing sexual abuse have already been exposed from the 2006 gang rape shit at Abu Ghraib.

Warning: this shit IS NOT SAFE FOR WORK.

http://www.atlargely.com/atlargely/2009/05/photos-obama-wont-release-include-images-of-rape.html

***SPRAYER
05-28-2009, 10:32 AM
It should be mentioned that photos showing sexual abuse have already been exposed from the 2006 gang rape shit at Abu Ghraib.

Warning: this shit IS NOT SAFE FOR WORK.

http://www.atlargely.com/atlargely/2009/05/photos-obama-wont-release-include-images-of-rape.html

Looks like a typical day in Nancy Pelosi's district.

BigRedChief
05-28-2009, 10:57 AM
Uh, the Telegraph is not a tabloid. It's one of largest and more conservative papers in the country. Who could report this that would make you believe it's true? The NY Times? Washington Post? Who?
Okay so if its believable and sooooo on the up and up and this is such a reputable paper why is it not a huge story? No friggin way the American papers/TV/Radio let this slide if true.
Fox news would be all over this 24 hours a day.

CoMoChief
05-28-2009, 12:15 PM
You mess with the US and you get sodomized. end of story.

Sounds like a hell of a deterrent to me.

***SPRAYER
05-28-2009, 12:31 PM
I'm still waiting to see the LA Times video of B.O. yucking it up with all the Jew killers who endorsed him.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-28-2009, 01:16 PM
U.S. Military Investigator Confirms Women and Children Were Raped At Abu Ghraib

After years of corporate media whitewashing Abu Ghraib abuse in the context of college fraternity-style humiliation, truth about rape and sexual torture of women and children finally being reported


Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, May 28, 2009

It only took five years, but the mainstream media has finally acknowledged the truth behind why certain photos and videos from the infamous Abu Ghraib prison camp have been blocked from public release - they show U.S. soldiers and other prison guards raping female detainees as well as children.

In an interview with the London Telegraph, Major General Antonio Taguba, the former army officer who conducted an inquiry into the Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq, confirmed the details of his original army report, that the unreleased photos showed rape and sexual abuse of women and minors.

“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,” reports the Telegraph, adding, “Further photographs are said to depict sexual assaults on prisoners with objects including a truncheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube.”

Taguba also verified the credibility of eyewitness statements from other detainees that described an American-Egyptian male translator in uniform raping teenage boys.

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.”

“These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency,” Taguba told the Telegraph.

(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)



Taguba’s confirmation that the photos depict rape mean that President Obama could only have been lying when he claimed, “I want to emphasize 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.”

As we reported last week, such horrors have been on the record for years, yet corporate media coverage of the Abu Ghraib scandal still frames the entire issue in the context that the “abuse” consisted merely of college fraternity-style humiliation and stacking prisoners in human pyramids.

In reality, the very worst of the torture has never been seen and it includes raping women and children, as well as brutally beating detainees to death.

Further details were also made public by New Yorker investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who in July 2004 told an ACLU conference,

“Some of the worst things that happened you don’t know about, okay?” said Hersh. “Videos, there are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib … The women were passing messages out saying ‘Please come and kill me, because of what’s happened’ and 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. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It’s going to come out.”

Following his refusal to release the unseen photos, the ACLU charged that President Obama “has essentially become complicit with the torture that was rampant during the Bush years by being complicit in its coverup.” The Obama administration has also sought to protect intelligence officials involved in torture from prosecution at every turn.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6527.htm

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/07/15/hersh/index.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/obama-pledges-to-protect-cia-torture-operatives-1670067.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/us-military-investigator-confirms-women-and-children-were-raped-at-abu-ghraib.html

KILLER_CLOWN
05-28-2009, 01:21 PM
I'm still waiting to see the LA Times video of B.O. yucking it up with all the Jew killers who endorsed him.

like Rahm Emanuel?

memyselfI
05-28-2009, 01:32 PM
Okay so if its believable and sooooo on the up and up and this is such a reputable paper why is it not a huge story? No friggin way the American papers/TV/Radio let this slide if true.
Fox news would be all over this 24 hours a day.

Well, it could be the corporate news wants more verification before they run with the story. Fox may never run it because they still have a vested interest in making sure Bush & Cheney stay out of prison after they cheer led for them for 8 years. MSNBC has a vested interest in not running the story because they do want to do anything to embarrass Obummer so they can continue to cheerlead for him.

Hold on, the press secretary Gibbs has just denied any sexual abuse photos in the pictures and basically is brushing off the British report...

does he not realize military INVESTIGATORS who have seen the reports confirm their existence???? Hopefully this will motivate the media to dig deeper to prove he's lying or an ignoramus or both.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-28-2009, 03:03 PM
Torture and the American Conscience

PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
Counterpunch
Thursday, May 28, 2009

Torture is a violation of US and international law. Yet, president George W. Bush and vice president Dick Cheney, on the basis of legally incompetent memos prepared by Justice Department officials, gave the OK to interrogators to violate US and international law.

The new Obama administration shows no inclination to uphold the rule of law by prosecuting those who abused their offices and broke the law.

Cheney claims, absurdly, that torture was necessary in order to save American cities from nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists. Many Americans have bought the argument that torture is morally justified in order to make terrorists reveal where ticking nuclear bombs are before they explode.

However, there were no hidden ticking nuclear bombs. Hypothetical scenarios were used to justify torture for other purposes.

We now know that the reason the Bush regime tortured its captives was to coerce false testimony that linked Iraq and Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda and September 11. Without this “evidence,” the US invasion of Iraq remains a war crime under the Nuremberg standard.

Torture, then, was a second Bush regime crime used to produce an alibi for the illegal and unprovoked US invasion of Iraq.

U.S. Representative Ron Paul (R,Tx) understands the danger to Americans of permitting government to violate the law. In “Torturing the Rule of Law”, he said that the US government’s use of torture to produce excuses for illegal actions is the most radicalizing force at work today. “The fact that our government engages in evil behavior under the auspices of the American people is what poses the greatest threat to the American people, and it must not be allowed to stand.”

One might think that the American public’s toleration of torture reflects the breakdown of the country’s Christian faith. Alas, a recent poll released by the Pew Forum reveals that most white Christian evangelicals and white Catholics condone torture. In contrast, only a minority of those who seldom or never attend church services condone torture.


It is a known fact that torture produces unreliable information. The only purpose of torture is to produce false confessions. The fact that a majority of American Christians condone torture enabled the Bush regime’s efforts to legalize torture.

George Hunsinger, professor at Princeton Theological Seminary, has stepped into the Christian void with a powerful book, Torture is a Moral Issue. A collection of essays by thoughtful and moral people, including an American admiral and general, the book demonstrates the danger of torture to the human soul, to civil liberty, and to the morale and safety of soldiers.

Condoning torture, Hunsinger writes, “marks a milestone in the disintegration of American democracy.” In his contribution, Hunsinger destroys the constructed hypothetical scenarios used to create a moral case for torture. He points out that no such real world cases ever exist. Once torture is normalized, it is used despite the absence of the hypothetical scenario.

Hunsinger notes that “evidence” obtained by torture can have catastrophic consequences. In making the case against Iraq at the UN, former Secretary of State Colin Powell assured the countries of the world that his evidence rested on “facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.” Today Powell and his chief of staff, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, are ashamed that the “evidence” for Powell’s UN speech
turned out to be nothing but the coerced false confession of Al-Libi, who was relentlessly tortured in Egypt in order to produce a justification for Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq.

Some Americans, unable to face the criminality and inhumanity of their own government, maintain that the government hasn’t tortured anyone, because water boarding and other “enhanced interrogation techniques” are not torture. This is really grasping at straws. As Ron Paul points out, according to US precedent alone, water boarding has been considered to be torture since 1945, when the United States hanged Japanese military officers for water boarding captured Americans.

If the Obama regime does not hold the Bush regime accountable for violating US and international law, then the Obama regime is complicit in the Bush regime’s crimes. If the American people permit Obama to look the other way in order “to move on,” the American people are also complicit in the crimes.

Hunsinger, Paul and others are trying to save our souls, our humanity, our civil liberty and the rule of law. Obama can say that he forbids torture, but if those responsible are not held accountable, he has no way of enforcing his order. As perpetrators are discharged from the military and re-enter society, some will find employment as police officers and prison officials and guards, and the practice will spread. The dark side will take over America.

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts05282009.html

patteeu
05-28-2009, 03:19 PM
If true, Anyone who knew about this and anyone who tried to cover it up needs to go to jail.

You'd better rethink that since your boy, Obama, is in that group now.

BigRedChief
05-28-2009, 03:23 PM
You'd better rethink that since your boy, Obama, is in that group now.
No one is above the law. And I've got no tolerance for cover ups, especially about the raping of children. JEEZZZ :shake:

blaise
05-28-2009, 03:26 PM
No one is above the law. And I've got no tolerance for cover ups, especially about the raping of children. JEEZZZ :shake:

Maybe I'm in denial but I have a hard time believing they were raping children.

patteeu
05-28-2009, 03:26 PM
No one is above the law. And I've got no tolerance for cover ups, especially about the raping of children. JEEZZZ :shake:

What do you mean by "above the law". In your previous post, you weren't limiting yourself to cases where he actually broke a law. Are you backtracking?

Obama is clearly covering up these photos whether they show rape or just abuse.

BigRedChief
05-28-2009, 03:37 PM
What do you mean by "above the law". In your previous post, you weren't limiting yourself to cases where he actually broke a law. Are you backtracking?

Obama is clearly covering up these photos whether they show rape or just abuse.
No backtracking going on here. If Obama tryed to cover up this then thats a deal breaker for me. Just not releasing them is up to interpetation for motives.

jAZ
05-28-2009, 03:49 PM
What do you mean by "above the law". In your previous post, you weren't limiting yourself to cases where he actually broke a law. Are you backtracking?

Obama is clearly covering up these photos whether they show rape or just abuse.

Blocking the photos isn't covering up a crime.

You can't trust the Bush Administration to police the actions that took place on their watch. So them blocking photos causes concerns about the motivation (protecting themselves by blocking a full scale criminal investigation). Obama has the luxury of not being responsible for the actions taken under Bush's watch.

So he's freed from the same doubt, if not all doubt entirely.

If he says this stuff can't get out now for the safety of the troops, there is no self-serving element that confuses the issue.

Refusing to release the photos because it might cost you your job and send you to jail = "a coverup".

Refusing to release the photos because it might cost the lives of soldiers and not having anything to do with your personal gain <> "a coverup".

memyselfI
05-28-2009, 04:13 PM
Blocking the photos isn't covering up a crime.

You can't trust the Bush Administration to police the actions that took place on their watch. So them blocking photos causes concerns about the motivation (protecting themselves by blocking a full scale criminal investigation). Obama has the luxury of not being responsible for the actions taken under Bush's watch.

So he's freed from the same doubt, if not all doubt entirely.

If he says this stuff can't get out now for the safety of the troops, there is no self-serving element that confuses the issue.

Refusing to release the photos because it might cost you your job and send you to jail = "a coverup".

Refusing to release the photos because it might cost the lives of soldiers and not having anything to do with your personal gain <> "a coverup".

OMG, you are shameless. ROFL Even BRC has conceded that this could be a problem.

Obummer campaigned on a platform of transparency and accountability which was CHANGE from the previous administration's standard operating procedure. He is aiding the cover up of these photos because he has ordered his justice department not to comply with the court order approving their release.

He has stated his reasons why which, coinky dinky, are the SAME AS BUSH'S...the same Bush Administration of whom you lamented endlessly for their behavior and their refusal to acknowledge crimes committed.

Bush Lite is aiding a cover up if he continues down this path. The pictures will get out and his refusal to release them will be seen as protecting the previous administration and not the country or the military.

memyselfI
05-28-2009, 04:28 PM
Well, so much for transparency, truth, and accountability. Can you say, COVERUP???? I knew you could.

http://cbs13.com/national/abu.ghraib.photos.2.1022121.html

Justice Department Wants Abuse Photos Blocked
Retired Gen. Antonio Taguba, Who Led Abu Ghraib Prisoner Abuse Probe, Agrees Photos Should Not Be Released
CBS News Interactive: Abuse At Abu Ghraib
LONDON (AP) ―

[A former U.S. general said graphic images of rape and torture are among the photos of Iraqi prisoner abuse that President Barack Obama's administration does not want released.

The administration asked a federal court, it was revealed Thursday, to cancel its decision ordering the release of disturbing images of detainee abuse.

The request comes in a letter filed to a federal appeals court in New York. The letter cites two partially secret statements from top U.S. generals David Petraeus and Ray Odierno.

The Obama administration had planned to release the photos until the president reversed the decision, saying their release would endanger U.S. troops serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Bush administration had made similar arguments and lost. The new filing says releasing the photos would pose clear and grave risks of inciting violence and riots.

Retired Major Gen. Antonio Taguba, who oversaw the U.S. investigation into the abuses at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison, was quoted as telling Britain's Daily Telegraph in an article Thursday that he agreed with Mr. Obama's decision not to release the pictures.

"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," Taguba was quoted by the Daily Telegraph. "The mere description of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it."

It was not exactly clear what photos Taguba was referring to.

A U.S. military official in Baghdad, however, said "the photos referred to are ones that Taguba is not aware of." The official spoke on condition of anonymity Thursday because he was not authorized to release the information.

The military is referring all questions on the matter to Washington. The Obama administration did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Iraqis called for an investigation into the Daily Telegraph report.

"The Iraqi government must demand the reopening of the Abu Ghraib scandal case again," said Ali Kadom, 45, who works at the Ministry of Transportation.

Khalid Bashi, 35, a trade office owner in Baghdad, said Mr. Obama should release the photos to put a stop to a possible scandal.

"Sooner or later, more scandals will appear that show crimes against humanity carried out by American troops in Iraq," Bashi said.

The prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib exploded after photos taken by soldiers appeared in 2004.

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.

The Telegraph said the photos related to 400 cases of alleged abuse between 2001 and 2005 at Abu Ghraib and six other prisons. It was not immediately clear from the newspaper report who had seen the photos or how they might have been obtained.

The newspaper said the images in the photos were backed up by statements from Taguba's report into prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib obtained under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.

memyselfI
05-28-2009, 05:24 PM
About to go mainstream media here in the US?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-05-28-iraq-abuse-photos_N.htm#uslPageReturn

KC native
05-28-2009, 05:30 PM
About to go mainstream media here in the US?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-05-28-iraq-abuse-photos_N.htm#uslPageReturn

Like I said earlier, prosecute those involved and then after we have extracated ourselves from Afghanistan and Iraq, release the photos. Right now those pics if they do include rape (if they don't they should be released) would do nothing other than incite a fury amongst the Taliban and Iraqi fighters we are facing.

memyselfI
05-28-2009, 05:42 PM
Like I said earlier, prosecute those involved and then after we have extracated ourselves from Afghanistan and Iraq, release the photos. Right now those pics if they do include rape (if they don't they should be released) would do nothing other than incite a fury amongst the Taliban and Iraqi fighters we are facing.

I call BS on this argument. AQ managed to be outraged enough to commit 9/11 before such photos were even in the question. In addition, many more photos have been released in publications around the world. It's only here, in the US, has there been an orchestrated attempt by the government AND the mainstream media to embargo evidence of crimes committed.

The reason they are not being allowed has less to do with the reaction from AQ than it does the US government does not want to have to deal with the INTERNAL aftermath of such crimes being exposed to the citizens. They do not want investigations and don't want more attention paid to this than has been already. Because they know this is likely the tip of the iceberg and investigations would expose that fact.

It would then be VERY difficult for Bush Lite or anyone else to continue to avoid prosecuting for war crimes. As it is, one wonders just how far will the POTUS go to protect the previous administration from prosecution and how much he'll personally invest in covering up crimes he knows about.

KC native
05-28-2009, 05:45 PM
I call BS on this argument. AQ managed to be outraged enough to commit 9/11 before such photos were even in the question. In addition, many more photos have been released in publications around the world. It's only here, in the US, has there been an orchestrated attempt by the government AND the mainstream media to embargo evidence of crimes committed.

The reason they are not being allowed has less to do with the reaction from AQ than it does the US government does not want to have to deal with the INTERNAL aftermath of such crimes being exposed to the citizens. They do not want investigations and don't want more attention paid to this than has been already. Because they know this is likely the tip of the iceberg and investigations would expose that fact.

It would then be VERY difficult for Bush Lite or anyone else to continue to avoid prosecuting for war crimes. As it is, one wonders just how far will the POTUS go to protect the previous administration from prosecution and how much he'll personally invest in covering up crimes he knows about.

I'm all for investigations and putting people in jail but if these photos depict rape then they need to be held back for now.

jAZ
05-28-2009, 05:45 PM
OMG, you are shameless. ROFL Even BRC has conceded that this could be a problem.

Obummer campaigned on a platform of transparency and accountability which was CHANGE from the previous administration's standard operating procedure. He is aiding the cover up of these photos because he has ordered his justice department not to comply with the court order approving their release.

He has stated his reasons why which, coinky dinky, are the SAME AS BUSH'S...the same Bush Administration of whom you lamented endlessly for their behavior and their refusal to acknowledge crimes committed.

Bush Lite is aiding a cover up if he continues down this path. The pictures will get out and his refusal to release them will be seen as protecting the previous administration and not the country or the military.
Pay attention, please.
But in any case, he's taking a huge political risk by reversing himself on this issue. If this is true, and the photos underdiscussion are in fact these same ones mentioned by Hersh and here... then his role in the "coverup" is quite deliberate and I would completely support it (for the time being).
You seem ignore the obvious difference between Bush and Obama on this issue. And you seem to deliberately conflate "coverup" in the two distinct situations.

1) Bush may very well have commited crimes that lead to these actions being taken in Abu Gharib.
2) As such Bush had a personal motivation to coverup his own involvement in these actions, if only because it represented a lack of control.

Obama isn't covering up for his own misdeeds. That's not a factor as it was when Bush made the decisions.

His judgement has everything to with the consequences of releasing the photos and nothing to do with protecting his own ass.

Even you can at least admit that difference.

You don't have to agree with the choice, but at least be honest about the factors involved.

jAZ
05-28-2009, 05:46 PM
I'm all for investigations and putting people in jail but if these photos depict rape then they need to be held back for now.

Yes, agreed.

memyselfI
05-28-2009, 05:55 PM
Pay attention, please.

You seem ignore the obvious difference between Bush and Obama on this issue. And you seem to deliberately conflate "coverup" in the two distinct situations.

1) Bush may very well have commited crimes that lead to these actions being taken in Abu Gharib.
2) As such Bush had a personal motivation to coverup his own involvement in these actions, if only because it represented a lack of control.

Obama isn't covering up for his own misdeeds. That's not a factor as it was when Bush made the decisions.

His judgement has everything to with the consequences of releasing the photos and nothing to do with protecting his own ass.

Even you can at least admit that difference.

You don't have to agree with the choice, but at least be honest about the factors involved.

He's ignoring a COURT ORDER regarding the photos and is refusing to investigate the previous administration to discover the truth about possible war crimes.

He is actively participating in the cover up. You can assign all sorts of altruistic reasons why he's doing it but it doesn't change the fact that he's assisting in a coverup.

KC native
05-28-2009, 05:57 PM
He's ignoring a COURT ORDER regarding the photos and is refusing to investigate the previous administration to discover the truth about possible war crimes.

He is actively participating in the cover up. You can assign all sorts of altruistic reasons why he's doing it but it doesn't change the fact that he's assisting in a coverup.

I have selfish reasons as well as common sensical reason. My little bro is in Afghanistan right now. I'd rather there not be a firestorm of shit bc some explicit rape photos are released.

memyselfI
05-28-2009, 06:55 PM
I have selfish reasons as well as common sensical reason. My little bro is in Afghanistan right now. I'd rather there not be a firestorm of shit bc some explicit rape photos are released.

I completely understand and respect this rationale and share it as one of my best friend's husband is shipping out for his 3rd tour in June...

however, you are naive to think your brother or my friend's husband are THE reason they are covering up these crimes. Your brother and my friend may be the benefactor of the consequences of the cover up but they are not the reason. The reason is to protect the previous administration and shield them from possible war crimes tribunals or prosecutions.

If those photos become public then the POTUS may choose to ignore their implications and continue to try to shield the previous administration from prosecution but the rest of the world might try to prosecute them and the US would be hard pressed to explain why they shouldn't. They are also protecting our allies governments because they'd be forced to step up some kind of efforts to elicit justice lest they be seen as complicit in the crimes or their cover up.

Can you imagine what a laughing stock we would be if we tried to bring another Milosevic or Saddam to trial when we refused to hold our own government accountable for crimes the world has seen were committed...

your brother and my friend's husband are but small fish in a big sea of reasons why they are choosing the cover up.

patteeu
05-29-2009, 06:49 AM
Blocking the photos isn't covering up a crime.

You can't trust the Bush Administration to police the actions that took place on their watch. So them blocking photos causes concerns about the motivation (protecting themselves by blocking a full scale criminal investigation). Obama has the luxury of not being responsible for the actions taken under Bush's watch.

So he's freed from the same doubt, if not all doubt entirely.

If he says this stuff can't get out now for the safety of the troops, there is no self-serving element that confuses the issue.

Refusing to release the photos because it might cost you your job and send you to jail = "a coverup".

Refusing to release the photos because it might cost the lives of soldiers and not having anything to do with your personal gain <> "a coverup".

These photos depict acts of abuse that were not condoned nor authorized by the Bush administration. Your distinction between Obama and Bush is invalid because there was no more reason for Bush to cover anything up (for personal reasons) than there is for Obama. Both want[ed] to withhold the pictures for the same reason.

mikey23545
05-29-2009, 07:17 AM
This is asinine. The only place the Bush administration authorized acts like rape are in the fevered imaginations of Bush-obsessed liberals.

Unfortunately, acts of rape and abuse have probably occurred in every war that has ever been fought...just an ugly side of humanity that reveals itself at times of mortal conflict.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-29-2009, 09:15 PM
More Senior Military Sources Confirm Rape and Sodomy At Abu Ghraib

New report contradicts White House denials

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Friday, May 29, 2009

Fresh confirmations have emerged from senior military sources that suppressed photographs of the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison show scenes of rape, sexually explicit acts, sodomy and forced masturbation.

Harper’s Magazine writer Scott Horton, who also writes for The Daily Beast website, writes that he “has obtained specific corroboration” from a “highly credible senior military officer with firsthand knowledge,” who he says has provided even more detail about images being withheld from the public by the Obama administration.

Horton writes that the photographs “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.”

Horton’s sources revealed that in addition to other sexual acts, some of the photographs show a uniformed soldier receiving oral sex from a female prisoner, a government contractor engaged in an act of sodomy with a male prisoner, and a female prisoner being forced to expose her breasts.

“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.” Horton writes.

The military source also described an image in which Specialist Charles A. Graner, who was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment in 2005, is shown suturing the face of a prisoner, effectively stitching the skin, as if closing open wounds, despite the fact that the prisoner required no such medical procedure.

The account directly contradicts yesterday’s denials by both the White House and the Pentagon that the withheld photographs contain evidence of sexual abuse.

(Article continues below)



By denying the statements of Major General Antonio Taguba, featured in the London Telegraph earlier this week, the White House is denying the facts of the official internal military investigation from 2004, in an apparent attempt to pull off a crude bait and switch.

Taguba merely confirmed to the Telegraph what was in his original report.

Taguba also verified the credibility of eyewitness statements from other detainees that described an American-Egyptian male translator in uniform raping teenage boys.

The fresh confirmations, combined with Taguba’s reiteration of his original findings, as well as other accounts from credible figures such as veteran reporter Seymour Hersh and US Senator Lindsey Graham, disprove president Obama’s assertion that the suppressed photographs are “not particularly sensational”.

The truth will out, and as the ACLU has said, Obama “has essentially become complicit with the torture that was rampant during the Bush years by being complicit in its coverup.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-29/torture-photos-depict-sex-rape/

http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-admin-continues-to-protect-bush-torture-criminals-denies-photos-show-rape.html

http://www.npr.org/iraq/2004/prison_abuse_report.pdf

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/07/15/hersh/index.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/05/08/RUMSFELD.TMP&type=printable

http://www.prisonplanet.com/more-senior-military-sources-confirm-rape-and-sodomy-at-abu-ghraib.html

BucEyedPea
05-29-2009, 09:16 PM
These photos depict acts of abuse that were not condoned nor authorized by the Bush administration.
How would you know?

patteeu
05-29-2009, 09:17 PM
How would you know?

Because that's what they were reported to be.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-29-2009, 09:19 PM
Cookies, not torture, convinced al Qaeda suspect to talk, FBI interrogator says

Raw Story
Friday, May 29, 2009

The practice of torturing suspected terrorists received fresh blows Friday after a magazine reported that a key al Qaeda suspect offered useful intelligence after receiving sugar-free cookies.

Ali Soufan, a former FBI interrogator, revealed in an article being released in June that Osama Bin Laden’s bodyguard opened up about the 9/11 terror attacks only after being offered — sugar free cookies.

Bin Laden lieutenant Abu Jandal is a diabetic, Soufan said, and wouldn’t eat sugar cookies he’d been offered.

“Soufan noticed that he didn’t touch any of the cookies that had been served with tea: ‘He was a diabetic and couldn’t eat anything with sugar in it,’ Time’s Bobby Ghosh wrote. “At their next meeting, the Americans brought him some sugar-free cookies, a gesture that took the edge off Abu Jandal’s angry demeanor.

“We had showed him respect, and we had done this nice thing for him,” Soufan told Ghosh. “So he started talking to us instead of giving us lectures.”

The seemingly absurd report calls into question the efficacy of the Bush administration’s so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques.” A 2005 memo by a Bush administration official revealed that CIA interrogators had waterboarded alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 183 times in one month.

Waterboarding — or partial drowning — also drew fire late last week when a conservative radio host voluntarily underwent the procedure and lasted just six seconds before calling off the procedure. He later said that he would have said anything to have gotten his handlers to stop.

Ghosh also paints Abu Jandal as having transformed almost miraculously after his interrogators showed him humanity.

Prior to the cookies incident, “Abu Jandal’s guards were so intimidated by him, they wore masks to hide their identities and begged visitors not to refer to them by name in his presence,” Ghosh writes. “He had no intention of cooperating with the Americans; at their first meetings, he refused even to look at them and ranted about the evils of the West. Far from confirming al-Qaeda’s involvement in 9/11, he insisted the attacks had been orchestrated by Israel’s Mossad.”

Afterward, the al Qaeda operative who grew up in Saudi Arabia and had been held in a Yemeni prison, offered myriad details about the terror network and its membership.

“It took more questioning, and some interrogators’ sleight of hand, before the Yemeni gave up a wealth of information about al-Qaeda — including the identities of seven of the 9/11 bombers — but the cookies were the turning point,” Ghosh writes.

“After that, he could no longer think of us as evil Americans,” Soufan said. “Now he was thinking of us as human beings.”

Soufan’s comments come on the heels of statements by a former military interrogator who said that he believed that the Bush administration’s torture policies actually cost “hundreds — if not thousands” of American lives.

“Torture does not save lives,” the interrogator, who spoke under a pseudonym, said. “And the reason why is that our enemies use it, number one, as a recruiting tool…These same foreign fighters who came to Iraq to fight because of torture and abuse….literally cost us hundreds if not thousands of American lives.”

-John Byrne

http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/05/cookies-al-qaeda/

BucEyedPea
05-29-2009, 09:20 PM
Because that's what they were reported to be.

Who's "they?"

memyselfI
05-29-2009, 10:39 PM
Cookies, not torture, convinced al Qaeda suspect to talk, FBI interrogator says


http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/05/cookies-al-qaeda/

My mother's Toll House Cookie bars could single-handedly save the world. I'll have her get on it right away.

patteeu
05-30-2009, 10:54 AM
Who's "they?"

The pictures in question.

dirk digler
05-30-2009, 10:06 PM
Apparently this story is bogus. Shocking I know.

White House reporters received an unusual email on Saturday, with a subject line stating, "Important Please Read: From White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs."
In the email body, Gibbs wrote:A number of you have asked about or reported on a recent article in the Telegraph that inaccurately described photos which are the subject of an ongoing lawsuit. Both the Department of Defense and the White House have said the article was wrong, and now the individual who was purported to be the source of the article has said it's inaccurate. Given that this false report has been repeated around the world, and given the impact these negative reports have on our troops, I felt it was important for you to see this correction. Gibbs included the full text of a story by Salon.com's Mark Benjamin (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/05/30/taguba/print.html), which features retired Army Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba denying reports that he has seen the photos of prisoner abuse that the Obama administration is trying to keep secret.
The Telegraph reported (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5395830/Abu-Ghraib-abuse-photos-show-rape.html) on Friday: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.
But Taguba told Salon (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/05/30/taguba/print.html) that his quotes were taken out of context, and were not about the photos that Obama does not want released."The photographs in that lawsuit, I have not seen," Taguba told Salon Friday night. The actual quote in the Telegraph was accurate, Taguba said -- but he was referring to the hundreds of images he reviewed as an investigator of the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq -- not the photos of abuse that Obama is seeking to suppress.

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba denied reports that he has seen the prisoner-abuse photos that President Obama is fighting to keep secret, in an exclusive interview with Salon Friday night.

On Thursday an article in the Daily Telegraph reported that Taguba, the lead investigator into Abu Ghraib abuse, had seen images Obama wanted suppressed, and supported the president's decision to fight their release. The paper quoted Taguba as saying, "These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency."

But Taguba says he wasn't talking about the 44 photographs that are the subject of an ongoing ACLU lawsuit that Obama is fighting.

"The photographs in that lawsuit, I have not seen," Taguba told Salon Friday night. The actual quote in the Telegraph was accurate, Taguba said -- but he was referring to the hundreds of images he reviewed as an investigator of the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq -- not the photos of abuse that Obama is seeking to suppress.

In March 2006 Salon published "The Abu Ghraib Files," (http://www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/introduction/) 279 photographs and 19 videos collected by the Army's Criminal Investigation Division as it examined the shocking cases of prisoner abuse at the notorious Baghdad prison. The photos depict scenes of extreme cruelty – prisoners forced to publicly masturbate, naked prisoners held in extreme stress positions, or being walked naked by a female guard. Some photos show prisoners bloodied and otherwise injured, with untrained guards tending to their wounds.

Several news organizations have described some of those same images as among the ones Obama is seeking to suppress, when in fact, they've already been published by Salon (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/05/30/photos/index.html). Taguba says the Telegraph story got one important fact right: He said he does support Obama's decision to fight the release of the images subject to the lawsuit, even though he has not seen those images. "No other photographs should be released," Taguba told Salon, because he worries additional images might threaten the safety of U.S. troops.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-30-2009, 11:00 PM
US violated Geneva Conventions, Bush Iraq commander says

John Byrne
Raw Story
Friday, May 29, 2009

The head of the US Central Command, General David Petraeus, said Friday that the US had violated the Geneva Conventions in a stunning admission from President Bush’s onetime top general in Iraq that the US may have violated international law.

“When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Conventions we rightly have been criticized, so as we move forward I think it’s important to again live our values, to live the agreements that we have made in the international justice arena and to practice those,” Gen. Petraeus said on Fox News Friday afternoon.

Petraeus made the comment in the context of being asked about the Bush administration’s so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques.” The now-Central Command chief said he believed that banning the more extreme techniques had taken away “a tool” employed by “our enemies” as a moral argument against the United States.

Petraeus didn’t say which parts of the Geneva Conventions he thought he and other administration officials had violated.

Asked about a “ticking time bomb” scenario — which is often employed by torture’s defenders — Petraeus said that interrogation methods approved for use in the Army Field Manual were generally sufficient.

“There might be an exception and that would require extraordinary but very rapid approval to deal with but for the vast majority of the cases our experience… is that the techniques that are in the Army Field Manual that lays out how we treat detainees, how we interrogate them, those techniques work, that’s our experience in this business,” he said.

He also acknowledged that the US prison at Guantanamo Bay has inflamed anti-US hostility.

“I do support is what has been termed the responsible closure of Gitmo,” Petraeus said. “Gitmo has caused us problems, there’s no question about it. I oversee a region in which the existence of Gitmo has been used by the enemy against us. We have not been without missteps or mistakes in our activity since 9/11 and again Gitmo is a lingering reminder for the use of some in that regard.”

“I don’t think we should be afraid of our values we’re fighting for,” he added. “What we stand for and so indeed we need to embrace them and we need to ope rationalize them in how we carry out what it is we’re doing on the battle field and everywhere else. So one has to have some faith I think in the legal system. One has to have a degree of confidence that individuals that have conducted such extremist activity would indeed be found guilty in our courts of law.”

This video is from Fox’s Live Desk, broadcast May 29, 2009.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JDPMCDfdqQk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JDPMCDfdqQk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/29/petraeus-geneva-conventions/

jAZ
05-30-2009, 11:58 PM
But Taguba told Salon (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/05/30/taguba/print.html) that his quotes were taken out of context, and were not about the photos that Obama does not want released.[INDENT]"The photographs in that lawsuit, I have not seen," Taguba told Salon Friday night. The actual quote in the Telegraph was accurate, Taguba said -- but he was referring to the hundreds of images he reviewed as an investigator of the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq -- not the photos of abuse that Obama is seeking to suppress.

Guess I was right...

First of all, his remarks are about a particular set of photos. These are supposedly videos. I don't know if these images (photos or videos) are among those being discussed or not.

BigRedChief
05-31-2009, 09:42 AM
Still waiting.........So is this BS or not? No way the WSJ or Fox news stays away from this if true. Makes it BS in my mind unless the "mainstream" press jumps on it. It'as just too explosive to sit on.

mlyonsd
05-31-2009, 10:35 AM
Still waiting.........So is this BS or not? No way the WSJ or Fox news stays away from this if true. Makes it BS in my mind unless the "mainstream" press jumps on it. It'as just too explosive to sit on.

USA Today had the story on their website a few days ago.

BigRedChief
05-31-2009, 11:47 AM
USA Today had the story on their website a few days ago.
It was a story on the london report. Not a report on the pictures. USA Today isn't breaking any stories.

Agsin, if this were true the media would be all over it.

BigChiefFan
05-31-2009, 11:51 AM
Damnit, just because he isn't releasing the photos, doesn't mean the torture happened on his watch. Get a grip.

BigChiefFan
05-31-2009, 11:59 AM
For the record, we should release the photos, though. That's what TRANSPARENCY is.

patteeu
05-31-2009, 12:05 PM
Damnit, just because he isn't releasing the photos, doesn't mean the torture happened on his watch. Get a grip.

It's practically guaranteed that if we remain at war for his full 4 year term (assuming he doesn't get impeached and removed earlier), torture will take place on his watch. He won't endorse it or order it, but somewhere, someone will step out of line.

StcChief
05-31-2009, 01:57 PM
It's practically guaranteed that if we remain at war for his full 4 year term (assuming he doesn't get impeached and removed earlier), torture will take place on his watch. He won't endorse it or order it, but somewhere, someone will step out of line. yeah... the false Messiah isn't saving us.

Iowanian
05-31-2009, 06:36 PM
I don't believe that American interogators sodomized any boys. No way that is true.

King_Chief_Fan
06-01-2009, 10:10 AM
It's practically guaranteed that if we remain at war for his full 4 year term (assuming he doesn't get impeached and removed earlier), torture will take place on his watch. He won't endorse it or order it, but somewhere, someone will step out of line.

and he will pull a pelosi and claim he wasn't informed:)

blaise
06-01-2009, 10:46 AM
It seems like some people want this to be true. Like they actually hope children were raped on camera so they can score some sort of victory.