Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Speculation on the unreleased Abu Ghraib photographs

By claudius in News
Tue Aug 16, 2005 at 05:43:47 AM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

In defiance of court orders [1], the current U.S. administration refuses to release additional torture pictures and videos. The justification proffered is that the material on the photographs is so graphic that it would fuel additional hatred for the United States and put U.S. troops in harm's way.  However, one is inclined to suspect a larger political motive for their actions.

[1] Kate Zernike, "Government defies an order to give up Iraq abuse photos," New York Times, July 23, 2005.


I would propose that some or all of the following may be behind the Administration's actions:
  • The material on the photographs and videos is indeed, as Seymour Hersh, Donald Rumsfeld, Gen. Meyers, and various senators have described, so bad as to make milk curdle and children cry. Grotesque footage of the rape of little children and naked, bound prisoners being savaged by feral dogs is somewhat over the top.
  • The security situation is so wretched in Iraq at the moment that the release would very likely plunge the country into civil war with a possible rout of the so-called coalition forces. If tens of thousands of Iraqis were to die over a few week span and if the U.S. casualties were to spike into the several thousands, it probably wouldn't play well in Peoria.
  • The photos and videos imply knowledge and acceptance by the brass.  These "leaders"  had the good grace not to practice marital infidelity (an unforgivable offense, apparently), but rather, to permit and possibly condone torture and rape by and of those under their command.  If any are drawn into this beyond the chosen NCO patsies, it would imply knowledge up the chain of command of the prison's activities and would signal a coverup. This would be at odds with Congressional testimony and would likely constitute impeachable offenses.  Defending these charges in the media or the courts could prove to be an inconvenience for an embattled Administration trying to reclaim support for an unpopular war.
  • The material implicates any or all of: contracted "soldiers for hire", the CIA, Israeli intelligence officers, Halliburton or a subsidiary, known war criminals who committed atrocities in South Africa and elsewhere. Explaining the roles of these agents in the interrogation and torture of prisoners together with sorting out the implications of their participation for soldiers who took part in the abuse would be a difficult task, one not easily managed in a sound bite news culture.
  • The leadership are in too deep with the "a few bad apples" and "harmless fraternity pranks" memes that they could not hope to weather a front-page above-the-fold assault that suggests to the world a weak grasp of ethics, honesty, and appropriateness. Even if the Geneva Conventions were not to apply, Bush and Co. would still have a tough time justifying how the rape of children in the pursuit of information on (what they appear to have known at the time) non-existent WMDs plays into the larger security and strategic picture. Abu Ghraib is a nexus that ties together multiple vulnerabilities of the Administration, including: coverup, dishonesty, no-bid contracts, private contractors, Israel and Middle East policy, intelligence gathering techniques and efficacy, appropriateness of the war, its prosecution, sabre rattling with Syria and/or Iran, WMD, torture and human rights, rendition policies, Camp X-Ray, Gen. Miller, Bolton, Rumsfeld, Rove. It would be difficult, short of starting another war, to find a sufficiently large distraction to break out of this cycle if the story were to grow legs.
The interpretations and messages Washington insiders so desperately want the public to accept are often incomplete or not entirely factual, so I'm inclined to suspect more at work here than just protecting the troops, a sentiment belied somewhat by "bring 'em on" braggadocio.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Why the photographs and videos will not not be released:
o Bad stuff on them 15%
o Bad security in Iraq 1%
o Bad leadership exposed 17%
o Bad actors revealed 3%
o Bad lies 1%
o All of the above 39%
o Other badness we have yet to hear about 20%

Votes: 58
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Also by claudius


Display: Sort:
Speculation on the unreleased Abu Ghraib photographs | 97 comments (85 topical, 12 editorial, 0 hidden)
+1FP, fucks over the USA's war effort (1.55 / 9) (#4)
by Pat Chalmers on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 05:54:22 PM EST



Question regarding arguments against release (3.00 / 12) (#5)
by emad on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 07:12:05 PM EST

Regarding this issue, one of the basic arguments against the release of these photos effectively states: If we release these images, we will further destabilize the region, provide more fuel for the terrorists, and ultimately hurt the U.S. soldiers. This sort of comment is usually made by those of the right wing persuasion. The question arises, is this an admittal that horrific US actions create and fuel terrorists? This is certainly different from the standard talking point used by the right claiming terrorists act out of blind hatred.

multi-causal (none / 0) (#65)
by SocratesGhost on Tue Aug 16, 2005 at 08:53:20 PM EST

I think you're confusing two things: terrorists (such as Zarqawi, Al Qaeda, and most foreigners fighting in Iraq) and the Iraqi insurgency (which is mostly composed of native Sunni). Their goals are not the same and neither are their motivations but they do somewhat support one another. Terrorism doesn't need something like Abu Ghraib as an excuse, but Abu Ghraib can increase discontent and encourage people to join the insurgency.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
Here. (1.09 / 11) (#8)
by What Good Is A 150K Salary When Living In NYC on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 08:38:33 PM EST

Click this link and you can fill in your life story. The field is intended for a Dayglo Abortions song called "You Are So Boring", but your life story will most certainly cut the mustard.


Skulls, Bullets, and Gold
Wooo hooo! +1FP; definitely about (1.16 / 6) (#9)
by Sesquipundalian on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 08:51:22 PM EST

Lyndie England sodomizing teen Iraqi boys.


Did you know that gullible is not actually an english word?
Some comments on your points (1.60 / 5) (#10)
by maniac1860 on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 08:53:12 PM EST

1. This is the explicit reason that the administration has given.
2. More of (1) with some retarded shit added.  (Coalition forces routed? Are you out of your mind?)
3. I suppose it is possible this could be, but it's pretty damn unlikely.
4. Legitimate
5. Incoherent, paranoid ramblings

With that out of the way, I'm going to "speculate" that the reason you wrote this is your a homosexual pedophile who murders his victims. Additionally I think that you may be an agent of private contractors, Israel and Middle East blah blah blah

+1FP I love hearing about Americn soldiers (1.66 / 6) (#11)
by tweetsybefore on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 09:02:02 PM EST

raping children.

I'm racist and I hate niggers.
-1 (1.08 / 12) (#13)
by t1ber on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 10:35:25 PM EST

-1: calls for speculation, and was written by bleeding liberal vag-1nas.

And she said...
Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah
Hadji girl I can't understand what you're saying.

-1, second that (1.00 / 4) (#15)
by evilmeow on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 02:24:16 AM EST


"[O]ne thing is certain: people are certifiably historically myopic"

[ Parent ]
it's just like the Pentagon Papers (2.75 / 4) (#16)
by Lode Runner on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 02:50:11 AM EST

except without the papers

And (none / 1) (#59)
by shinshin on Tue Aug 16, 2005 at 01:53:37 PM EST

Without a media that has enough spine to do any investigation of the blatant lies being told to them by the White House.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]
are you sure you meant "And"? /nt (none / 1) (#63)
by Lode Runner on Tue Aug 16, 2005 at 07:18:52 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Yes (none / 1) (#72)
by shinshin on Wed Aug 17, 2005 at 01:46:32 AM EST

The differences between the era of the Pentagon Papers and today are:
  1. they had damning papers
  2. they had a media with a spine and will to investigate

We have neither anymore, so the war machine built on deception will keep marching inexorably onwards, certainly much to the delight of cheerleaders like yourself.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]

ok, just wanted to clarify (none / 0) (#73)
by Lode Runner on Wed Aug 17, 2005 at 02:53:10 AM EST

that we are on the same page w/r/t point #1.

As for the press, they're too busy writing puff-pieces about Cindy Sheehan to do much in the way of serious investigation of anything. That's an exaggeration; they're going to dig deep into this Madonna-fell-off-a-horse story.

[ Parent ]

At least we can agree on (none / 1) (#79)
by shinshin on Wed Aug 17, 2005 at 11:25:00 AM EST

one thing: unbridled contempt for the American media.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]
I haven't seen the photos (1.55 / 9) (#17)
by godix on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 03:43:19 AM EST

but I can tell you exactly what is in them. More of the same. Prisoners put in poses meant to humiliate and degrade them. Prisoners threatened with physical harm which isn't carried out. Perhaps an injury that's caused more by neglect than a sadistic intent to harm. Basically the same things we already know happened in Abu Ghraib. There have been too many prisoners let loose from Abu Ghraib for there to be much worse, if the US was raping little children and savaging naked bound prisoners by feral dogs the world would alreayd have heard about it. The US milatary most certainly aren't acting angelic but they also aren't snapping pics while feeding prisoners feet first into a wood chipper.

The reason the military is fighting release is fairly simple, they have propaganda value to our enemies. These photos can be used to recruit people to fight US soldiers and oppose the goals of the US military, the same as the earlier ones already have been used. That's it, end of story. It really can be that simple. We don't need no stinking conspiracy theories to figure this shit out.


- An egotist is someone who thinks they're almost as good as I am.

Isn't carried out (2.40 / 10) (#18)
by marx on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 04:42:00 AM EST

Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush was being stubborn with his American captors, and a series of intense beatings and creative interrogation tactics were not enough to break his will. On the morning of Nov. 26, 2003, a U.S. Army interrogator and a military guard grabbed a green sleeping bag, stuffed Mowhoush inside, wrapped him in an electrical cord, laid him on the floor and began to go to work. Again.

It was inside the sleeping bag that the 56-year-old detainee took his last breath through broken ribs, lying on the floor beneath a U.S. soldier in Interrogation Room 6 in the western Iraqi desert. Two days before, a secret CIA-sponsored group of Iraqi paramilitaries, working with Army interrogators, had beaten Mowhoush nearly senseless, using fists, a club and a rubber hose, according to classified documents.

- Washington Post

There are several known cases where America has tortured people to death. America also regularly flies people to other countries to have them tortured, such as Egypt and Azerbadjan, where they are beaten and boiled alive for example. Fuck you godix.

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

what the hell? (1.00 / 7) (#20)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 07:26:27 AM EST

There are several known cases where America has tortured people to death. America also regularly flies people to other countries to have them tortured, such as Egypt and Azerbadjan, where they are beaten and boiled alive for example. Fuck you godix.

so let me get this straight:

the us government is responsible for the actions of other governments?

if you are full of so much moral indignation, why the fuck aren't you saying "Fuck you Egypt"

see my problem with assholes like you is very simple: your moral indignation only extends as far as it can be used against the us government

this suggests you have no morals, just a hatred for the us govt

for if your moral standards really were STANDARDS, we would regularly see assholes like you screaming about myanmar or egypt or zimbabwe

but we don't hear any of that from assholes like you now do we?

we just hear about how the actions of other governments are the fault of the us govt... contained usually with a diatribe about how the US DOESN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO GET INVOLVED IN OTHER COUNTRIES

what the hell?

which is it asshole?

the us is responsible, so go clean up your mess?

or the us isn't responsible, so let's go yell at egypt?

you can't fucking have it both ways!

you can't indeminfy and incriminate someone for a crime, and then suggest they have no responsibility to clean up their mess

either they are responsible, or they are not

you can not claim both povs in the same fucking thought!

see, from my pov, it's all fine and good to hate the us govt

fuck the fucking us govt, they fuck up all the time

listen to me very clearly: FUCK THE FUCKING US GOVT!

ok?

but from my pov, it's NOT all fine and good to have no morals

that's you btw: you have no morals

what you have is a set of propagandistic tools you use ONLY AS FAR AS YOU CAN USE IT FOR YOUR HATRED. but you apply those same "moral standands" NOWHERE ELSE

even in one fucking sentence, where you indemnify the us for the actions of egypt!

fucking incredible!

pure fucking blindness!

so when i despise assholes like you for attacking the us govt, it's not because i love the us govt or am defending them

but only because you're so full of shit

you speak with the tone of high holy moral righteous indignation

and yet you haven't a shred of moral standards about your pov


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Just be silent half-wit (2.25 / 4) (#22)
by marx on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 07:41:41 AM EST

When you capture and imprison someone you are responsible for their well-being. America captures people all over the world and transports them, in their own planes, to places like Egypt and Azerbadjan where they are subsequently tortured. America knows this will happen in advance, and it's their intent. Afterwards America uses information which has emerged during the torture.

Note that this has nothing to do with whether America should intervene in Egypt or wherever to stop the practise of torture. What America is doing is akin to capturing a girl on the street and transporting her to a known rapist.

If you can't see why this is wrong, then just stop posting to this site. Then your opinions are of no interest to anyone here. And try to keep your posts compact ffs. You could have said what you wanted to say in 2-3 sentences, you didn't need to take up a whole page.

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

wow (1.00 / 7) (#23)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 07:49:52 AM EST

so what does an obviously morally righteous person like you, have to say about the rapist YOU just mentioned?

we're all ears

but remember, i'm just a halfwit

so when i say i can see through the transparency of your indignation, and see only hatred instead, i must be a light headed fool

for we all know, that if this shit went down in pakistan or brazil or indonesia, you would be screaming with the same moral outrage on display above, right?

that if didn't involve the usa you would sitll be scremaing an dyelling as loudly as you do now, right?

but no, i'm just a half wit

to discern that truth out of your flaming obvious bias, and therefore doubt the strength of your "morality" is just me being silly

want the truth you stupid twat?

you don't give a rats ass about any of those suffering in abu ghraid

YOU ONLY FUCKIGN CARE ABOUT THEM AS FAR AS IT ADVANCES YOUR RETARDED BLIND HATRED

you're about as moral and you have about as much understanding of human rights in this world as my left toe

people with such a retarded bias like you are the ones in this world who CREATE injustice, not clean it up

this the truth, fuck hole: your bias is showing, flopping in the breeze for all to see

so you have no right to speak of morality and justice

because you care more about advancing a stupid agenda more than those concepts

and it couldn't be more fucking OBVIOUS

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

The Rapist (none / 1) (#25)
by marx on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 08:02:29 AM EST

In a state, the rapist would be captured by police and put on trial, if there was evidence he indeed was a rapist. On a global scale, a "rapist" country cannot be put on trial, because we don't have any global government. If you want to create global laws and global law enforcement against torture, then I'm all for it. Until you have laws however, you cannot punish people for wrongdoing. This is called the rule of law and is the basis for civilization. If you can't agree to this, you do not belong in a society.

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

say what?????????? (1.16 / 6) (#29)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 09:26:23 AM EST

On a global scale, a "rapist" country cannot be put on trial, because we don't have any global government.

so how does japan or germany or iraq get punsihed for invading it's neighbors exactly?

Until you have laws however, you cannot punish people for wrongdoing.

holy fucking SHIT

is this your moral outrage on display??????

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

This is called the rule of law and is the basis for civilization.

what is law son? a made up fleeting thought? or does it have basis in some sense of morality maybe? what is the basis for YOUR indignation at the us govt? underfuckingstand retard?

If you can't agree to this, you do not belong in a society.

if i can't agree to this??!!!

i DO agree to this

it's the MOTIVATION BEHIND MY OPINION

meanwhile what is the basis of your opinion?

you're full of outrage apparently at us actions on the world stage, but in your own words "Until you have laws however, you cannot punish people for wrongdoing."

;-P

(snicker)

i repeat, i am NOT defending the us govt

what i am doing is attacking the kind of useless assholes who say shit like "Until you have laws however, you cannot punish people for wrongdoing."

uh, no dorothy

laws flow from morality

morality doesn't flow form laws

your OWN position on the acitons of the us in iraq is DIRECT support of what i am saying and in DIRECT opposition to your post i am now responding to

work it moron

there's a gaping hole in your pov

it's been exposed

you're full of shit

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Learn to communicate (2.00 / 4) (#30)
by marx on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 10:06:03 AM EST

Half of your post is incoherent and full of spelling errors. You claim that morality goes before laws. That I'm supposed to lynch my neighbor if I catch him raping a girl instead of turning him over to the police.

If you do not support democracy and you cannot write the english language, then I don't see the point in continuing this.

Perhaps you have some sort of point in your post, but it's hidden behind a thick layer of garbage. Please remove it if you wish to talk to me.

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

you'll get there someday (1.20 / 5) (#34)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 11:00:13 AM EST

maybe even in this thread

just have to tease out the logical inconsistencies on your own position ;-)

That I'm supposed to lynch my neighbor if I catch him raping a girl instead of turning him over to the police.

exactly what is your stand on the us govt supposed to be composed of then?

you seeme to be cop, judge, and executioner on that issue no?

work out the conflicts, work out the conflicts dorothy... you'll get there ;-)

If you do not support democracy and you cannot write the english language, then I don't see the point in continuing this.

ah but i DO

applying democratic standards to the treatment of a fascist (the real kind, not the moronic propaganda kind) nondemocratic state (pre2003 iraq)...

do you see any conflict there?

have the walls of garbage been sufficiently parted retard?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Why don't you defend the catholic church. (none / 1) (#36)
by tweetsybefore on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 11:12:31 AM EST

n/t

I'm racist and I hate niggers.
[ Parent ]
c'mon troll, work harder than that (nt) (none / 1) (#38)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 11:14:13 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
I'm too lazy to thoroughly troll you. (none / 1) (#45)
by tweetsybefore on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 01:02:00 PM EST

I got better things to do.

I'm racist and I hate niggers.
[ Parent ]
so this is where the romance dies then (nt) (none / 1) (#46)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 01:05:19 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Thank you for proving my point (none / 1) (#68)
by godix on Wed Aug 17, 2005 at 12:26:46 AM EST

As I said, we will see injuries from neglect more than a sadistic intent to harm. Your quote, which presumably is the strongest example you could find, shows exactly that. The intent was to gather information and the prisoner refused to cooperate so extreme measures were used without regard to the prisoners well being. Note the goal here was NOT to harm or kill the prisoner but rather to get info, although in a mannor quite likely to cause harm or death. Which is, basically, exactly what I said. The injuries are a callous disregard for human life but they aren't an intentional attempt at taking human life. So, like my original post said, we will see more of what we already know happened. We will not see US guards taking baths in Iraqi virgin blood, tossing people into woodchippers, or other actions done for the sole reason to harm the prisoners.


- An egotist is someone who thinks they're almost as good as I am.
[ Parent ]
neglect? (none / 0) (#78)
by thejeff on Wed Aug 17, 2005 at 10:39:16 AM EST

So as long as the torture is done to get information, it's fine? Only sadistic torture with no other purpose is a problem?

[ Parent ]
Reading 101 (none / 0) (#83)
by godix on Wed Aug 17, 2005 at 06:47:57 PM EST

Take the class, you need it. I said what happened was done for reasons other than just plain sadistic glee. Which means the articles position the pictures are 'grotesque footage of the rape of little children and naked, bound prisoners being savaged by feral dogs' is probably not what will actually be in the pictures.

Notice that at no point did I say what happened in Abu Gharib was 'fine'.


- An egotist is someone who thinks they're almost as good as I am.
[ Parent ]

Now wait a second (none / 0) (#86)
by So Very Tired on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 01:55:59 AM EST

You say:

Which means the articles position the pictures are 'grotesque footage of the rape of little children and naked, bound prisoners being savaged by feral dogs' is probably not what will actually be in the pictures.

But you also said...

As you point out, we ALREADY KNOW THIS. The photos will show more of it but WE ALREADY KNOW THIS. What will we learn from the photos? Nothing.

Utter nonsense, Godix. One would think that if the claims of rape and savaging by feral dogs were extraordinary claims, that you would be the first one in line crying for their release.

To be blunt, you must have brown eyes. Full of shit and all that.



[ Parent ]
extraordinary claims (none / 1) (#88)
by godix on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 02:54:39 AM EST

Ya know, claiming claiming that Bill Clinton is programmed by the CIA to become head of the UN so he can anally rape the ambassador for China is an extraordinary claim as well. That doesn't mean I think all CIA files related to Clinton should be released though. For some reason people recently have decided that extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof DEBUNKING them instead of extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof PROVING them. I have no idea how or when this idea that every stupid theory with no proof behind it must be debunked but I suspect it's when the Russian Mafia paid off all the peace protesters. Perhaps every peace protester should make their every financial transaction for the last two decades public info so we can look into my extraordinary claim.

Since this entire thread is nothing but people unable to comprehend the written word, let me spell out exactly what I believe.

  1. I believe anyone implicated by these photos should be tried before a military court. If the abuses are widespread enough, and it appears they are, then I believe investigations should be started into what the superiors knew and why they didn't stop this. That doesn't mean all this should be held in public though.
  2. I believe the photos will just show the type of behavior we already know happened. They will show humiliating poses instead of babies being raped. They will show physical abuse used as a means of interrogation rather than setting feral dogs on the prisoners (it's hard to question a guy after half his face has been eaten). They certainly won't be pleasant pictures and they won't be something I endorse but they aren't going to be as horrendous as the article claims they will be.
  3. I believe there are substantial reasons to release the photos to the public. I believe there are substantial reasons to not release the photos to the public as well. I don't think there is a clear cut obvious answer to if they should be released or not. I believe it will take a, theoretically, uninvolved third part (ie a judge) to decide which reasons are more important.
  4. I believe K5 has been overrun by illiterate morons who automatically assume someone supports baby raping mass murderers just because they said that maybe the US is not Satan incarnated even though they do some bad things. Christ, reading this exchange is like reading what happens the few times a sane person stumbles into dailykos or free republic by accident.



- An egotist is someone who thinks they're almost as good as I am.
[ Parent ]
Hang on a moment. (none / 0) (#87)
by BJH on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 02:03:28 AM EST

So you're saying that you know these photos (which you haven't seen) do not show children being sodomized or people being attacked by dogs?

Where are you getting this from - the antenna attached to your head?
--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]

Reading Comprension? (none / 0) (#90)
by thejeff on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 12:02:54 PM EST

The quote to which you were responding described a man stuffed inside a sleeping bag and beaten to death.

You described that as neglect and said it proved your point. Ok, fine if your point is that horrible things are happening and being justified as "interrogation"

I don't thinks that rules out 'grotesque footage of the rape of little children and naked, bound prisoners being savaged by feral dogs.'
If beating someone to death is an interrogation method, then why not setting dogs on them?
I'm sure rape is a very effective method of breaking someone's will. Little children probably don't have much useful information, but their parents might.

More generally, I suspect there's some overlap between sadistic glee and interrogation. Give someone with sadistic tendencies orders to interrogate and don't keep a close rein on him and you'll get abuses that are not 'pure sadistic glee', since the purpose is interrogation, but are driven by sadism.

[ Parent ]

Torture is not effective (none / 0) (#85)
by GoofyBoy on Wed Aug 17, 2005 at 11:26:48 PM EST

The intent was to gather information and the prisoner refused to cooperate so extreme measures were used without regard to the prisoners well being.
At a certain point, torture will get a person to cooperate to anything at all, including telling you whatever you want to hear regardless if it is the truth or not. Anything to get you to stop. You never know if the information gathered is true or not.

So, at a certain point torture does get less useful as an information gathering tactic, so the torture was done without regard to gathering accurate and truthful information. One would lead to conclude that at this point it was either done for propaganda or sadistic purposes.

[ Parent ]

Fucking finally (none / 0) (#89)
by godix on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 03:03:25 AM EST

A sane response. And just as I had all but given up hope anyone on K5 was capable of a sane response.

You're right, after a certain point torture is ineffective at best and often actually counter-productive but that doesn't mean the military didn't use torture and humiliation for interrogation purposes. Just because it doesn't do any good doesn't mean it wasn't done. Look at Kyoto for example , all indications are that even if you assume every single thing environmentalist say is true you still have the fact Kyoto won't work. And yet a hell of a lot of political time and effort has been spent over the last few years on it. Humans have a remarkable tendency to waste their effort on stupid things that won't help their cause any. I'm afraid the fact that torture isn't a useful interrogation method yet was still done just leads me to the conclusion that people, on the whole, are dumb.


- An egotist is someone who thinks they're almost as good as I am.
[ Parent ]

symbols and dumbness (none / 1) (#92)
by claudius on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 07:28:08 PM EST

People aren't necessarily dumb, but they do seem quite irrationally taken with vacuous symbols and gestures.  Kyoto is a flawed treaty, yet many (including, I confess, myself) have looked to it as the start of something more profound, an acknowlegment that there really is a problem that impacts us all, a gesture suggesting a community decision to do something proactive, even if not a perfect resolution to the matter.  Kyoto signifies a beginning, not an endgame, something to which all rational environmentalists would agree, I contend.  

Similarly with torture.  If one tortures prisoners, at least one has gone through the gesture of trying to extract information, if less than useless information at that.  This is precious little comfort, granted, to the little ones with anal lacerations.  Though at least they can know that their suffering has satiated an American public thirsty for revenge for 9/11, what with all the Iraqi toddlers that day brandishing boxcutters and crashing planes into buildings.  

I suspect my own affinity for symbols would run to bloodlust if someone were to abuse my child.  Such is the nature of the human animal, pre-programmed by millions of years of evolution.  Society is built upon symbols.  

Handshakes are stupid, symbolic gestures, my friend.


[ Parent ]

Odd that your knowledge (3.00 / 5) (#33)
by guidoreichstadter on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 10:44:59 AM EST

contradicts the testimony of the investigating general over the Abu Ghraib scndal, who has seen the photos and videos, and who believes that claims that prisoners were raped, sodomized and beaten are credible. I wonder what the reason for this discrepancy might be.


you are human:
no masters,
no slaves.
[ Parent ]
The reason is simple (none / 1) (#69)
by godix on Wed Aug 17, 2005 at 12:30:04 AM EST

you don't understand what I said. Prisoners were harmed, both physically and mentally. There is no question about that and we don't need these new photos to prove it. The harm is a side effect of the main goal, gathering intelligence usually, rather than done for the sheer joy of beating prisoners to death or something. So do generals believe and these photos show that harm was done? Well duh. Will they show anything we don't already know? Probably not.


- An egotist is someone who thinks they're almost as good as I am.
[ Parent ]
What military or intelligence objective (3.00 / 2) (#81)
by guidoreichstadter on Wed Aug 17, 2005 at 12:30:59 PM EST

does rape and sodomy serve?


you are human:
no masters,
no slaves.
[ Parent ]
Keeping soldiers happy... [nt] (none / 0) (#91)
by artis on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 03:57:09 PM EST


--
Can you know that you are omniscient?
[ Parent ]
What are you smoking? (3.00 / 3) (#41)
by The Diary Section on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 11:34:44 AM EST

if the US was raping little children and savaging naked bound prisoners by feral dogs the world would alreayd have heard about it

You have heard -- repeatedly -- but every time someone brings these complaints up the right wing armchair generals (and some actual ones) say "show us proof or STFU". Of course they can't prove it when every scar and wound is claimed to be "self inflicted". We've been through this so many times, claim and immediate Pentagon denial (as if they would even have a way of finding out given the time the Toguba report took to prepare and investigate). I find it unbelievable you can pretend not to have heard these allegations before. Perhaps its finally time to switch from FOX eh?

You've denied things a priori so many times you've convinced yourself of your own lies. Well, the proofs coming, I look forward to your mitigations and evasions.
Spend 10 minutes in the company of an American and you end up feeling like a Keats or a Shelley: Thin, brilliant, suave, and desperate for industrial-scale quantities of opium.
[ Parent ]

Oh and btw (none / 1) (#42)
by The Diary Section on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 11:41:28 AM EST

The reason the military is fighting release is fairly simple, they have propaganda value to our enemies. These photos can be used to recruit people to fight US soldiers and oppose the goals of the US military, the same as the earlier ones already have been used.

LOLLING MY SOCKS OFF at the idea of that one.
Utterly risible. They couldn't hate you more than they already do. Wake up.
Spend 10 minutes in the company of an American and you end up feeling like a Keats or a Shelley: Thin, brilliant, suave, and desperate for industrial-scale quantities of opium.
[ Parent ]

For the third time (none / 1) (#70)
by godix on Wed Aug 17, 2005 at 12:39:20 AM EST

It's already known prisoners were injured both physcially and mentally. It's already known those injuries were a reckless disregard for the prisoners while in pursuit of other goals rather that some monsters hurting prisoners for the sheer joy of it all. As you point out, we ALREADY KNOW THIS. The photos will show more of it but WE ALREADY KNOW THIS. What will we learn from the photos? Nothing. Know why? WE ALREADY KNOW THIS. If these photos are released what will they prove? They'll prove things WE ALREADY KNOW. Since you're reading comprehension is obviously rather low, let me repeat WE ALREADY KNOW PRISONERS WERE ABUSED. WE ALREADY KNOW THE ALLEGATIONS. Photos of it will prove nothing that WE DIDN'T ALREADY KNOW. In other words, the photos will be more of the same. Which, oddly enoguh, was exactly what my point was to begin with.

If you still can't comprehend such a simple point let me know, I'll try to find a few more ways to explain that if you already knew something happened then looking at photos of it will just be a repeat of things you already know.

Christ, K5 has turned into a bunch of fucking morons. I swear, you idiots would point out that new satellite photos will prove the earth is round as if that's some great stunning revelation or something.


- An egotist is someone who thinks they're almost as good as I am.
[ Parent ]

Imbecile (none / 1) (#75)
by The Diary Section on Wed Aug 17, 2005 at 06:39:56 AM EST

Is someone holding a gun to your head and making you post this idiocy?
If I were you I'd have some fucking pride and make them pull the trigger.

Spend 10 minutes in the company of an American and you end up feeling like a Keats or a Shelley: Thin, brilliant, suave, and desperate for industrial-scale quantities of opium.
[ Parent ]
Here, just to help you (none / 1) (#76)
by The Diary Section on Wed Aug 17, 2005 at 08:06:51 AM EST

Godix says: More of the same. Prisoners put in poses meant to humiliate and degrade them. Prisoners threatened with physical harm which isn't carried out. Perhaps an injury that's caused more by neglect than a sadistic intent to harm.

Apparently Godix didn't see the pictures last time to say such stupid things but he still manages to contradict himself anyway:

It's already known prisoners were injured both physcially and mentally. What, sorry, I thought you just said they weren't physically harmed? Apparently its neglect when you break peoples bones by kicking them and set dogs on them? You are confusing the official defence of Guantanamo abuse with the defence of Abu Graib abuse.

It's already known those injuries were a reckless disregard for the prisoners while in pursuit of other goals rather that some monsters hurting prisoners for the sheer joy of it all.

No Godix, that most certainly is not known. Apparently you know better than the General that investigated the matter and the court that tried Lindie England et al. Either your real name is Donald Rumsfeld or you are letting your arse do the talking here.

There have been too many prisoners let loose from Abu Ghraib for there to be much worse, if the US was raping little children and savaging naked bound prisoners by feral dogs the world would alreayd have heard about it. The US milatary most certainly aren't acting angelic but they also aren't snapping pics while feeding prisoners feet first into a wood chipper.

Bizarre belief in what the US military would and wouldn't do, immediately contradicted by yourself anyway: WE ALREADY KNOW PRISONERS WERE ABUSED. WE ALREADY KNOW THE ALLEGATIONS. Photos of it will prove nothing that WE DIDN'T ALREADY KNOW.

"We" do not know that, indeed one post ago you didn't either as I've just shown, much less has the Bush administration acknowledged these accusations.

In short, its bad enough you don't read my posts properly, fuck knows why you can't even understand your own.
Spend 10 minutes in the company of an American and you end up feeling like a Keats or a Shelley: Thin, brilliant, suave, and desperate for industrial-scale quantities of opium.
[ Parent ]

snore (1.00 / 22) (#21)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 07:40:36 AM EST

high holy moral righteous indignation

from the usual crowd who apparently can only hold the us govt to those standards

so much for the concept of "standards" when applied to morality

i have no problem with hating the us govt

listen to me very carefully: FUCK THE US GOVT

ok?

the problem i have is with those criticizing the us govt the most

their position has very little to do with morality or justice, and much to do with propaganda and hatred

in short author: even if every single charg ein your article were correct, you're the last fucker int he world who has the right to make it

because you retarded bias is hanging out your zipper, flopping in the wind

these rumors here are to be taken as unquestionable iron clad truth, not a shred of rumor about it, right? and to suggest it's just rumor means i'm a flaming neocon sucking dick cheney's cock, right? not possible at all in your mind that doubting these rumors is just that: critical doubt, right?

NONPOSSIBLE! UNPOSSIBLE!

see, dear gentle reader, according to the same kind of assholes who wrote this article, the behavior on demonstration in this article is the soul provenance of washington dc

and when this same shit goes down in myanmar, zimbabwe, sudan, iran, etc...

what do we hear?

not a fucking peep from these assholes

so which is the truth then?

the kind of asshole who wrote this article in flaming moral outrage is a morally righteous seeker of truth?

or a retarded victim of propaganda, spewing hatred, an donly understanding the horror of the crimes he is suggesting, and only caring about the crimes he is suggesting, AS FAR AS HE CAN USE IT AGAINST THE US GOVT

moral outrage in the service of propaganda

isn't moral outrage at all

moral outrage has an understanding of universailty about it

but when it is applied only against one actor in the world, without ANY mention of any other crimes taking place in this world, some FAR FAR worse, it isn't moral outrage at all

this is MY charge, this is my moral outrage, so listen up assholes like the author of this piece:

you don't fucking care about those suffering abu gharaib

you only fucking care about them as far as oyu can manipulate them in your blind propagandized hatred

for if the shit going down in abu gharaib were going down in brazi or india or pakistan

we wouldn't hear one fucking peep from you useless braindead fucks

ain't that the truth


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

I will explain this as simply as I can (2.14 / 7) (#24)
by marx on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 07:56:30 AM EST

Since you seem quite dense, I'll try to use simple words.

America is a democracy, and sees itself as the savior of the world. Zimbabwe is a dictatorship, not a democracy. Sudan is a dictatorship, not a democracy. Iran is a dictatorship, not a democracy. etc.

In the list of these countries, which are democracies?:

USA, Burma, Zimbabwe, Iran, Sudan.

If you have power, then you have responsibility. In a dictatorship, only one or a few people have the power, and thus they are responsible for the actions of their country. In a democracy, the people have the power, and thus they are responsible for the actions of their country.

This is why the USA is held to higher standards. We know the dictator of Zimbabwe is an asshole, and we know the ayatollahs in Iran are assholes. We can comprehend that a person can be a psychopath and take power over a country. But it's much harder to accept that a majority of the population in America support torture, but it's evidently true.

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

go to the logical conclusion of your own thoughts (1.33 / 3) (#39)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 11:22:06 AM EST

In a dictatorship, only one or a few people have the power, and thus they are responsible for the actions of their country. In a democracy, the people have the power, and thus they are responsible for the actions of their country.

yes, yes, yes, yes

so you would think, as a logical conclusion of your own thoughts that:

1. overthrowing a fascist regime that invades it's neighbors like japan and germany did would be something you support

and

2. that what a bunch of assholes did in abu ghraib would be punished, and not become propaganda fodder for suggesting donald rumsfeld likes to butt fuck iraqis, as the tone of this retarded article would suggest

for, in a democracy, bad things happen, just like in a fascist state

but, just like you suggest, the difference is that when something bad happens, something is done about it

so why do so many fucking losers think NOTHING is being done about it and that the us govt is on a mission to rape iraqi prisoners as so much of the claptrap around here suggests?

read this bullshit again:

The leadership are in too deep with the "a few bad apples" and "harmless fraternity pranks" memes that they could not hope to weather a front-page above-the-fold assault that suggests to the world a weak grasp of ethics, honesty, and appropriateness. Even if the Geneva Conventions were not to apply, Bush and Co. would still have a tough time justifying how the rape of children in the pursuit of information on (what they appear to have known at the time) non-existent WMDs plays into the larger security and strategic picture. Abu Ghraib is a nexus that ties together multiple vulnerabilities of the Administration, including: coverup, dishonesty, no-bid contracts, private contractors, Israel and Middle East policy, intelligence gathering techniques and efficacy, appropriateness of the war, its prosecution, sabre rattling with Syria and/or Iran, WMD, torture and human rights, rendition policies, Camp X-Ray, Gen. Miller, Bolton, Rumsfeld, Rove. It would be difficult, short of starting another war, to find a sufficiently large distraction to break out of this cycle if the story were to grow legs.

now, starting with your OWN thoughts in your post above, tell me i make less sense than that


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Iran is a democracy (none / 0) (#43)
by BottleRocket on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 12:31:04 PM EST

It's just a democracy where there's no chance of building a legitimate opposition to the shah. Opposition parties would be harrassed and have their offices raided by police until they became unable to continue their campaigns. By marginalizing significant opposition parties, they've managed to maintain a theocratic republic.

There's another dimension to this too. At the moment, the government in Iran is very popular. To be sure, this is partly due to a continuing propaghanda campaign. But this is also partly due to recent successes the Iranians have had as a result of the Iraq war. If the US rolled into Iran and "liberated the Iranian people," they would probably turn around and elect another religious theocracy. After all, the country is 89% shia muslim. You can get started by looking it up here [cia.gov]. In this way, it's a lot like Russian democracy, and yes, there are a number of similarities with American democracy.

Zimbabwe is supposed to be a democracy too, but Mugabe rigged the last election.

$ . . . . . $ . . . . . $ . . . . . $
. ₩ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . *
$ . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Yes I do download [child pornography], but I don't keep it any longer than I need to, so it can yield insight as to how to find more. --MDC
$ . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
. . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . *
. ₩ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$ . . . . . $ . . . . . $ . . . . . $
$B R Σ III$

[ Parent ]

point of historical order- (3.00 / 2) (#44)
by guidoreichstadter on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 12:52:08 PM EST

Iran's parliamentary system under Prime Minister Mossadeq was overthrown in a CIA backed coup in 1956 over the Prime Minister's attempts to nationalize western oil interests, and Shah Mohammad Reza was emplaced as head of state. The 1979 Iranian revolution overthrew the Shah and established the current Islamic Republic where military backed religious officials hold final executive power.


you are human:
no masters,
no slaves.
[ Parent ]
Democracy (none / 0) (#82)
by Shajenko on Wed Aug 17, 2005 at 12:39:33 PM EST

It's just a democracy where there's no chance of building a legitimate opposition to the shah. Opposition parties would be harrassed and have their offices raided by police until they became unable to continue their campaigns. By marginalizing significant opposition parties, they've managed to maintain a theocratic republic.
Having elections is not sufficient for a country to be a democracy. The elections have to be somewhat fair.

If the government does anything like rigging the vote, preventing certain groups from voting, restricting who can run for office, etc., then it's generally not a democracy - it's a sham election meant only to make the government look like something other than an oligarchy/despotism.

[ Parent ]
-1, thinks the US (none / 1) (#27)
by The Diary Section on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 08:46:03 AM EST

is no better than Pakistan. Why do you hate America son?
Spend 10 minutes in the company of an American and you end up feeling like a Keats or a Shelley: Thin, brilliant, suave, and desperate for industrial-scale quantities of opium.
[ Parent ]
america sucks (none / 1) (#37)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 11:13:38 AM EST

people who are obsessed with it (read, those who hate it) therefore suck even worse


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
"obsessed with it" (none / 0) (#47)
by The Diary Section on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 01:17:13 PM EST

are we supposed to ignore the last remaining superpower on Earth throwing its weight around? Eveb if one decided to become apolitical and disinterested in current affairs, there is still the little matter of Ms. Rice and Mr. Bush turning up at regular intervals to inform us American's problems are shared by us whether we like it or not. Therefore, I have no idea what your point is with that.

America was a great nation and can be again. It was founded by men of vision and genius. Its a shame and a tragedy where its been dragged down to in recent years, time to raise ambitions, aspirations and expectations. Demand more. Make a stand against the race to the bottom these Jihadists have succesfully goaded the Bush administration into entering. I believe the US can do it. Seems funny you don't.
Spend 10 minutes in the company of an American and you end up feeling like a Keats or a Shelley: Thin, brilliant, suave, and desperate for industrial-scale quantities of opium.
[ Parent ]

excuse me? (1.00 / 3) (#56)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 16, 2005 at 11:18:36 AM EST

you hold the us guilty for the crime every nation on earth is guilty of?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Of course not (none / 0) (#57)
by The Diary Section on Tue Aug 16, 2005 at 12:35:53 PM EST

you are the one that routinely compares the United States to third world despot-led hellholes, not me.
Spend 10 minutes in the company of an American and you end up feeling like a Keats or a Shelley: Thin, brilliant, suave, and desperate for industrial-scale quantities of opium.
[ Parent ]
interesting (none / 1) (#61)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 16, 2005 at 04:02:31 PM EST

now these "third world despot-led hellholes" you refer to, with people suffering in them

is this the same compassion that informs your care and concern for the iraqis at abu ghraib?

because, silly me, i thought you cared about the suffering of those in such situations

silly me, not in a million years would i think that a phrase like "third world despot-led hellholes" would lead me to believe that you traffic in the same venom and suffer form the same sheltered perspective that drives bush and cheney and rumsfeld

no, i'm just silly that way

i'm just looking for real compassion for people in the third world, rather than just more of the same political propaganda making and agending that you get from bush and rumsfeld

are you applying for their job or something asshole?

you got the right attitude


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

oh see what you mean (none / 0) (#58)
by The Diary Section on Tue Aug 16, 2005 at 12:42:10 PM EST

well look, the world is obsessed with what American soldiers get up to in Iraq. Why not? We want not necessarily to see those photographs but we certainly want them acted upon, for the same reason as an other upstanding American Patriot would want. Prior experience with the present administration suggests that only public exposure will bring this about. Do these people not disgust and shame you? Do you not want this pattern of behaviour that many have said has its roots not in a few bad apples but in a chain of command (e.g., see Seymour Hersh's book) to be fully investigated?

It would be poor indeed for a nation to win a war but lose it soul, dignity and good standing to do it.
Spend 10 minutes in the company of an American and you end up feeling like a Keats or a Shelley: Thin, brilliant, suave, and desperate for industrial-scale quantities of opium.
[ Parent ]

this is my problem (1.75 / 4) (#60)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 16, 2005 at 03:58:22 PM EST

no one really cares about those suffering at abu ghraib

if this was happening anywhere else, under any other regime, or even in abu ghraid under saddam hussein, to bring the irony home completely, no one would care

if you ask someone why these photos are so important, what will you hear?

human rights, sense of decency, basic human respect...

in other words, appealing to a global human moral standard

and completely and utterly defiling that standard because they only care about this sense of "universal human decency" when the us govt is involved

therefore rendering their "moral outrage" as nothing more than biased hatred of the us

so do i have a problem with what is going on at abu ghraib?

yes, i do, punish the assholes!

but what do i think if the assholes who wrote this story?

i have nothing but withering disgust, because i see right through their shallow appeals at morality and justice and accountability and responsibility

because their obvious bias shows them to be completely out of touch with an y semblence of an understanidng of those ideas

in short, assholes like the guy who wrote this story don't give a fuck about the suffering in abu ghraib

they only bring it up as far as they can use it against the us govt

for assholes like the person who wrote this story, hating the us govt is more important than morality and justice

listen to me carefully: fuck the us govt, punish the assholes behaving criminally at abu ghraib

and then spit in the face of the biased assholes like the guy who wrote this story

they have no idea what human dignity and a global conscience is

and they use that concept, and rape that concept, in their pursuit of their retarded vendetta

they don't further justice in this world, it's just more political agenidzing to them

in other words, the guy who wrote this story traffics in the same propaganda, and venom and shit as what bush and rumsfeld do


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

moral outrage and propaganda (3.00 / 7) (#28)
by claudius on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 09:08:57 AM EST

Wearing our emotions on our sleeves, are we?  I guess your message is, "Yeah, we suck but others are worse so piss off, commie."  Oh, and that my personal bias somehow makes me unqualified to comment on this matter (apparently a right only reserved for sociopaths--I know no other who could hold an unbiased opinion on this matter).  

Regarding my personal feelings on the abuse and torture, I am and still remain outraged and sickened by the activities at Abu Ghraib; I believe it, and the reflexive condoning of torture that followed (the whole "fraternity prank" set of talking points distributed in the days following), constitute our most shameful moment in the past five years.  (Though I give a close second to how we allowed atrocity and genocide to persist for years in Sudan; contrary to your assertions, it is possible to be outraged by more than one thing at a time).  However, my own feelings aside, the purpose of the article was not to be another tired rant on a theme of "torture is bad" followed by a dozen "America love it or leave it" replies from the usual characters, with obligatory scolding counterpoints from the left, then the right.  We all can write the script, we've seen so many of these.  Nothing new here.  

Instead, I had meant to explore a much less discussed political dimension of the decision to withhold the photographs.  Like it or not, politics, and not a sense of outrage or appropriateness, guides decisions made by both parties in Washington, and a knowledge of this dimension is elemental for making any sense out of what goes on there.  Any of the latter you detect is, more often than not, carefully crafted sanctimony meant to distract you as they pick your pocket and send your child off to war.  I had thought, with activity on this story happening today, that the political considerations might prove to be an appropriate and interesting, if too cynical for some, topic for discussion and I gave a few speculative musings as grist for the debate mill.  

I applaud your passion, and would encourage you, if this article somehow reverses its trend and actually manages to get posted, to continue to participate in the debate.

[ Parent ]

debate???!!! (1.33 / 3) (#40)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 11:25:11 AM EST

what fucking debate???!!!

read this paranoid schizophrenia

The leadership are in too deep with the "a few bad apples" and "harmless fraternity pranks" memes that they could not hope to weather a front-page above-the-fold assault that suggests to the world a weak grasp of ethics, honesty, and appropriateness. Even if the Geneva Conventions were not to apply, Bush and Co. would still have a tough time justifying how the rape of children in the pursuit of information on (what they appear to have known at the time) non-existent WMDs plays into the larger security and strategic picture. Abu Ghraib is a nexus that ties together multiple vulnerabilities of the Administration, including: coverup, dishonesty, no-bid contracts, private contractors, Israel and Middle East policy, intelligence gathering techniques and efficacy, appropriateness of the war, its prosecution, sabre rattling with Syria and/or Iran, WMD, torture and human rights, rendition policies, Camp X-Ray, Gen. Miller, Bolton, Rumsfeld, Rove. It would be difficult, short of starting another war, to find a sufficiently large distraction to break out of this cycle if the story were to grow legs.

ain't nothing going on here except moronic propagandizing

you want me to "continue to participate in the debate"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

are you fucking serious?

tell me how to debate a propagandized paranoid schizophrenic dimwit and i will gladly do so

until then, disrespect and ridicule for morons is all you will get from me


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

-1, America is dumb [nt] (1.11 / 9) (#26)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 08:18:50 AM EST


----------------

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.

Speculation -reposted as topical (2.66 / 9) (#32)
by guidoreichstadter on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 10:29:25 AM EST

Speculation on the torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib is more one of degree than substance. Most of the instances of torture and abuse have likely been reported in the investigating Gen. Tabuba's report.

We know from his report Taguba believes there are credible allegations that individuals at Abu Ghraib were punched and beaten with blunt objects, attacked by dogs, raped, and sodomized. As matters of fact, what might be revealed by the videos and photos that the Bush Administration is witholding are particulars, such as how badly the detainees were beaten, what color were the attack dogs, how many people were raped, whether the person or people sodomized were male or female, adults or children, whether only a chemlight was used to sodomize them, or whether a broom handle was used also.

As for speculation as to motives the Administration might have for not wanting to release these photos and videos, its not hard to come up with any number of likely explanations.

'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.'
In Rumsfelds words, "If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse."

Photographs and videos like those being witheld by the Administration has a whole other political life beyonds the black and white descriptions of the Taguba report. Photographs already released communicate an experience far deeper than the spare official descriptions. The implications of wide public cognizance of the reality of the torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib can only be highly politically damaging for the Bush Administration. That reason alone is enough to explain the Administration's actions.


you are human:
no masters,
no slaves.

Well said (none / 1) (#48)
by marx on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 01:31:40 PM EST

A picture says more than a thousand words...

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

Are you wearing it? (1.12 / 8) (#50)
by LO313 on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 03:04:42 PM EST

So when you wrote this were you wearing your aluminum foil hat or do you take it off when posting? I think the pics would add very little to the scandal then to reignite the flames that the government has been trying to put out with invesitagtions and trials. More than likely there is no value added. The pics that were released were horrible and people have been losing freedoms and jobs over it. You're just hoping for a pic of Cheney naked.

quite the contrary (3.00 / 3) (#51)
by claudius on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 10:16:46 PM EST

I think the pics would add very little to the scandal then [sic]  to reignite the flames that the government has been trying to put out with invesitagtions and trials.

Images are very powerful in how they have the ability to focus the attention and collective will of the public.  The world had several independent reports indicating serious abuse in Abu Ghraib prison as well as other facilities prior to the release of the first batch of photographs, yet little was made of it precisely because of the lack of graphic detail that could be used to "shock and awe" the public.  The impact of the Holocaust was maximized by footage of bulldozers pushing the stacks of emaciated, dessicated bodies.  Arguably the most disturbing part of Iris Chang's book The Rape of Nanking was the photograph inset--the row of young Chinese men's decapitated heads lying on a fence comes to mind.   Kampuchean atrocities were amplified by photographs of the killing fields.  Grainy video immortalized Nick Berg's grisly death.

We owe it to ourselves not to be so timid as to avoid staring the evil wrought by us in the face, calling it for what it is: an abomination and betrayal of what we claim to represent.  The time for coverup and sugarcoat is over; we need to know the full extent of the damage we have done before we can make rational decisions on how to move on.  A democracy cannot function without openness of information, even if unpleasant.  If the release of the pictures causes us so much distress as to incite calls for substantive change and accountability, then so be it.  A small price to pay for the wakeup call.

As for tinfoil hats, only a fool would take at face value official protestations that are so manifestly self-serving.  Better to don the aluminum than to be taken for a sucker, I say.  

Always wear the shiny side facing out, fellow traveler.

[ Parent ]

uh, a pic of Cheney naked wouldn't cause riots. (none / 0) (#52)
by your_desired_username on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 10:18:00 PM EST

It would cause mass hilarity across all the world. A few sympathetic people would cry about Cheney's very, very sad condition, but everyone else would roll on the floor, laughing viciously.

[ Parent ]
Shouldn't people lose their jobs over this? (none / 1) (#77)
by GhostfacedFiddlah on Wed Aug 17, 2005 at 08:53:52 AM EST

There's been one conviction so far.  Should we be protecting people that have committed illegal torture? (read that phrase again, and think about your answer)

If the pentagon were actually trying these people and letting the US know they were being tried for torture (no, you don't have to release specific details to the public), then at least we'd know there were efforts being made to bring these traitors to justice.

[ Parent ]

Won't anyone think of the children? (1.33 / 3) (#54)
by phraggle on Tue Aug 16, 2005 at 04:57:58 AM EST



This is all just speculation. (1.33 / 3) (#55)
by Robert Acton on Tue Aug 16, 2005 at 06:55:41 AM EST



--
I am cured.
Govt did not defy court order (3.00 / 2) (#62)
by Ryan Aaron on Tue Aug 16, 2005 at 05:02:30 PM EST

The court order was to produce pictures that did not show the identities of the prisoners, and teh govt did produce those. Teh times ran a correction of its story.

Googling this issue will produce for those interested account of people who have seen the pictures and videos.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id= 1000990590

All of the speculation about abuse is contained in this article.

Pentagon Blocks Release of Abu Ghraib Images: Here's Why

By Greg Mitchell

Published: July 23, 2005 6:00 PM ET

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."

[NOTE: The New York Times on Tuesday ran a somewhat confusing correction on its story about this episode: "An article on Saturday about a federal judge's order regarding photographs and videotapes related to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal misstated a deadline and the response by Defense Department lawyers. The government was given until Friday to black out some identifying details in the material, not to release it. Defense Department lawyers met that deadline, but asked the court to block the public release of the materials. They did not refuse to cooperate with an order for the materials' release."]

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."



Hahahaha. (3.00 / 4) (#71)
by BJH on Wed Aug 17, 2005 at 01:44:01 AM EST

One Pentagon lawyer has argued that they should not be released because they would only add to the humiliation of the prisoners.

So, after raping/sodomising/beating these people, the Pentagon is all of a sudden deeply worried about their right to privacy?

Can you spell HYPOCRISY, you fucking law weasel?
--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]

HYPOCRISY (3.00 / 2) (#74)
by Smokin Juan on Wed Aug 17, 2005 at 03:35:00 AM EST

I don't know if' you've been paying attention but apparently HYPOCRISY is a virtue now days according to the latest anti-drug commercials. and of course ignorance is strength and were at war with one or another asia.

I'd say it's time, but rather it's too late.

[ Parent ]
Hard to believe, (3.00 / 2) (#93)
by McArabian on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 02:38:33 AM EST

but in a culture saturated with machismo, that's a very valid consideration.
Discretion is paramount, especially for the victims. It doesn't mean it's right or wrong, it's just a different way of trying to solve issues dealing with sexual abuse, shame, and humiliation.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain but it takes character and self control to be understanding and forgiving."
[ Parent ]

I couldn't help but... (3.00 / 4) (#64)
by mikelist on Tue Aug 16, 2005 at 07:44:59 PM EST

...notice that all of the people supporting the administration here seem to be those who have chosen not to become involved despite their age, which is in general, military prime time, 'Chickenhawk' is an apt term. They have less moral currency than their opponents, who by definition would not play along with the administration in this very bad prank being played on the members of the US armed forces. You already know that our involvement in Iraq is NOT improving the general situation in Iraq, quite the antithesis.

What we ARE seeing is how a regional bully came to power in a place where Muslim sects that could be compared in their differences to Baptists and Lutherans consider each other to be heretical traitors to be controlled or worse. It's quite likely that only a pig like SH could disregard both sides as it suits him, to effect the quiescence of the population.

I ask you to consider whether the stability of Iraq and its potential westernization (at least in some quarters)was best served by Saddam Hussein's admittedly sociopathic reign, or in the free-for-all that opposing clergy are revelling in currently in an effort to create a theocracy friendly to their stripe of Islam. I think the answer can be extrapolated from the actions of the formerly US supported Taliban in Afghanistan.

Just keep grasping at those straws.

We're talking about rape and murder here (2.25 / 4) (#66)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Tue Aug 16, 2005 at 09:21:26 PM EST

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said, "The American public needs to understand, we're talking about rape and murder here."

There's a very good Dailykos article on this same topic: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/22/20220/6952

What the tapes show is little boys being raped in front of their parents.  "The worst about all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking."

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour

Moral Leadership (3.00 / 6) (#67)
by coljac on Tue Aug 16, 2005 at 11:08:22 PM EST

This whole tragedy - which I am sure is far from over - is a great example about the need for solid moral leadership.

I'm not talking about keeping smut off the TV screens, but policy decisions made with a firm commitment to basic principles. Did Bush give the order to torture children? No. But it's an inevitable consequence of the ruthlessness of those leading the US right now. Their commitment to the truth and the true principals of democracy are paper-thin. Secrecy, political expediency and hegemony at all costs have been the order of the day for 5 years now.

After September 11 the word went out that terrorists were the enemy, that "freedom" must be defended at all costs, and that those who bent the rules in the service of their country would be protected. The ideology of the neo-cons is based around simple axioms. America is the greatest; America is the guardian of freedom and can do no wrong; enemies are to be destroyed; force is the simplest and most direct solution to a problem; torture works. Might makes right. Moral questions are irrelevant when furthering American interests, because America is the beacon of good morality and furthering its aims is, by definition, moral.

Therefore, in only a few short years, the corruption has obviously set in all the way down the rank and file. The thugs and torturers are being promoted for being "results-oriented" while those advocating rational discussion and adherence to the rule of law are edged out. History teaches us the excesses that must inevitably follow.

I'm just so sickened by this decay, and the righteousness with which it is masked. With a straight face they can tell us that black is white and that evil is good. For now, it seems to be enough to say that critics are "disrespecting the brave men and women in uniform." How can we stand for it? I shudder to think at what must happen before Bush's platitudes are regarded with appropriate skepticism.

Very sincerely,

coljac



---
Whether or not life is discovered there I think Jupiter should be declared an enemy planet. - Jack Handey

Not limited to Abu Ghraib (3.00 / 7) (#80)
by guidoreichstadter on Wed Aug 17, 2005 at 12:29:20 PM EST

08/16/05 AP

Beaten Afghan's body "falling apart"

FORT BLISS, Texas - An Afghan detainee who died in military custody was injured so severely that his leg muscles were split apart, an Air Force medical examiner testified Tuesday in the trial of a soldier accused in the beating.

Lt. Col. Elizabeth Rouse, who performed the autopsy on the prisoner known as Dilawar, said his muscles were "crumbling and falling apart."

She testified that the injuries could have been caused by repeated knee strikes or by a fist.

Rouse also reviewed the autopsy of a man known as Habibullah and said he suffered what appeared to be similar blunt injuries...

8/13/05 Washington Post

"This is barbarism," Al-Laithi said of his treatment in the statement. "Why, even if I was guilty, would they do this?"

An Egyptian-born teacher imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for the past 3 1/2 years recently convinced the U.S. military that he is not an enemy combatant, but rather what he said he was: a pro-democracy English teacher swept up when the military seized fighters and suspected terrorists from the battlefields of Afghanistan.

In newly declassified records of statements to his attorney, Sami Al-Laithi said that as a result of his detention at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, he is now confined to a wheelchair with two broken vertebrae. He said military personnel and interrogators stomped on his back, dropped him on the floor and repeatedly forced his neck forward soon after his arrival at the prison.

He said he has been denied an operation that could save him from permanent paralysis and is being held at Camp V, a maximum-security wing of isolation cells reserved for the most uncooperative and high-value inmates, while he awaits transfer...

It is increasingly clear that torture and abuse in the US military prison system cannot be accurately dismissed as the wildcat actions of a few maverick soldiers. Full accountability is necessary if meaningful change is to occur. In the words of Michael Ratner, president of the Centre for Constitutional Rights: "Ensuring accountability for the torture conspiracy is the best way of demonstrating to the Muslim world that this outrage has come to an end and will not be repeated."

The ACLU has also called for an independent counsel with subpoena power to investigate the torture scandal, including the role of senior policymakers, and has filed a separate lawsuit to hold Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and high-ranking military officers accountable.

Reed Brody, head of international programmes for Human Rights Watch (HRW), told IPS, "The problem is not the photos but the policy of abuse. The release of the first photos last year led us to the revelations that senior U.S. officials had secretly sidelined the Geneva Conventions, re-defined 'torture', and approved illegal coercive interrogation methods."

"The release of new photos showing crimes perpetrated on detainees could create new impetus to expose and prosecute those ultimately responsible and hopefully prevent these practices from being repeated."

Michael Ratner, president of the Centre for Constitutional Rights, noted that, "The administration's response to the release of the photos is to kill the messenger, rather then to investigate and prosecute the real culprits: Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld, Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales, Generals Miller and Sanchez, and others."

He agreed that "the photos will be upsetting to anyone who cares about humane treatment and particularly to those in the Muslim world, but the photos reflect the reality of the type of treatment detainees were subjected to."

"Rather than suppress the best evidence of widespread torture of Muslim detainees, the Administration ought to launch a fully independent investigation and ought to see that an independent prosecutor is appointed," Ratner told IPS.

(from IPS)


you are human:
no masters,
no slaves.
Cowards (3.00 / 4) (#84)
by phayd on Wed Aug 17, 2005 at 07:12:02 PM EST

I am disgusted by this. Release the pictures and face the judgement.

OK, bring it on (1.50 / 2) (#94)
by cdguru on Sun Aug 21, 2005 at 07:30:36 PM EST

We should run these pictures - in full color - as full page, high-resolution graphics in every major newspaper in the US. Other countries would pick it up as well. This would likely result in exactly what everyone other than George Bush seems to want - a massive outcry from every place in the world to kill every last American.

Then, finally, after the dust settles, the rest of the world can get on with the business of killing other people that stand in the way of Muslim domination.

Do you really think there is any redeeming value to bringing more pictures out to public view? Really?

Is any redeeming value? (none / 1) (#96)
by John Thompson on Sat Aug 27, 2005 at 10:57:39 PM EST

cdguru wrote:

Do you really think there is any redeeming value to bringing more pictures out to public view? Really?

Yes.

Really.

If these photos can bring the utter moral and ethical depravity of the current administration back into public discussion, I'm all for it.



[ Parent ]
i've seen them (1.33 / 3) (#95)
by horny smurf on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 03:35:35 AM EST

the pictures show that snape killed dumbledore.

They are too busy wanking at them... (none / 1) (#97)
by CptPicard on Fri Nov 18, 2005 at 11:38:19 AM EST

Let's face it, the Abu Ghraib abuse is nothing but an expression of the inherent, repressed homosexuality inherent in the US military and the religious establishment.

You oppose most vehemently what you secretly are yourself but unable to come to terms with.  Such continued denial of one's inner feelings can, unfortunately, explode unchecked in almost sadistic ways when given the chance. The pressure just builds up until you can no longer keep it in. The prison of Abu Ghraib is a sad example of what can happen, should such primal urges not be satisfied in time.

The military is a fraternity centered around the idea of masculine force. Young, impressionable men, removed from females, get to tote phallic symbols and admire each other, all handsome and sweaty and full of testosterone. Can one not begin to be amorously drawn to one another in such a situation? This is all perfectly natural and logical, especially given the probable homosexual tendencies of recruits.

When such men are given free reign over Abu Ghraib, they may lose grasp of right and wrong. The lure of those trimmed, naked buttocks of an Iraqi POW becomes too strong to resist. What began as shy experimentation at the back of a Humvee with a fellow GI you care about, becomes a horribly mistaken urge to "liberate" the perceived, repressed sexuality of your captive by making him perform acts he doesn't want to, either with you or with other inmates. No matter if he resists; he just hasn't accepted the truth. The joy of penetrating him (or being penetrated) for the first time turns into lustful pleasure from hearing him scream into the Baghdad night.

What should be done to prevent such sad expressions of what began as natural sexuality? At least the situation should be acknowledged; it might be then addressed through education and controlled release. At the very least, training should include classes on military sexuality, and it should be required that there be regularly scheduled release excercises. These should preferably be performed through voluntary pairing, although I recognize that in a strict hierarchy such as the army it may be neccessary to keep it genuine and let superiors form the pairs.

Should the United States not address the issue of  pent-up, frustrated military homosexuality and the need to manage it and let it out in a controlled, normal manner, nobody's anus in the world is safe from forced sexual liberation. Let us hope that our sexual freedoms are not brought to us in the form of another Abu Ghraib in our neighbourhood.

Speculation on the unreleased Abu Ghraib photographs | 97 comments (85 topical, 12 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!