Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Suppressed images don't show rape, official says

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
BlueJessamine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 11:07 PM
Original message
Suppressed images don't show rape, official says
Source: Salon

June 2, 2009

Last Thursday, the Obama administration asked a federal court to block the release of images that depict detainee abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan. The court had sided with the American Civil Liberties Union in its request that the administration release the photos. The administration's move seemed to lend credence to swirling rumors on the Internet that the administration was suppressing a cache of images showing sexual abuse of detainees. The day of the administration's request to the court, Britain's Daily Telegraph published a story claiming that the images included rape and sexual abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison and elsewhere in Iraq and Afghanistan. On Friday, the Daily Beast reported that many of the photographs were "sexually explicit" and included images of "a uniformed soldier receiving oral sex from a female prisoner, a government contractor engaged in an act of sodomy with a male prisoner" and "penetration involving phosphorous sticks and brooms."

What do these unreleased images actually depict? A Defense Department official who has seen the unreleased images consented to give Salon some details. Salon agreed to keep the identity of the defense official private in exchange for the opportunity to interview a person with firsthand knowledge of the images.

Specifically, the official said there are about 2,000 images related to detainee abuse, none of which are from Abu Ghraib, and the images do not include depictions of sexual abuse. The official said the government does not have secret images of rape buried in its files.

The official told Salon that the Pentagon has compiled around 2,000 images of possible detainee abuse in response to the ACLU's suit. Salon then asked, via e-mail, whether any of the 2,000 images " a possible rape or sexual abuse" of the sort described in the media recently. The Daily Telegraph had reported that there were images of a male soldier forcing oral sex on a female detainee and a male translator anally raping a male detainee. "We don't have anything that would comport to what they are reporting," the official answered. (The official did not address whether any such images had ever existed.) Retired Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, whom the Telegraph had quoted as confirming that there were rape images among the unreleased material, told Salon on Friday that the Telegraph's report was inaccurate because he was quoted in a way that suggested he had seen the unreleased material. He has not. (The Daily Beast has since corrected its Friday story to say that none of the 44 photos "subject to the ACLU lawsuit and reviewed by President Obama" are sexually explicit.)


Read more: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/06/02/suppressed_photos/



snip

On Monday the Supreme Court gave the Obama administration 30 additional days to make its case for why the photos should not be released.

On the web:

Salon Says No Rape Shown in the 2000 Torture Photos

by Meteor Blades


http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/1/737822/-Salon-Says-No-Rape-Shown-in-the-2000-Torture-Photos
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 11:11 PM
Response to Original message
1. Well, if an "official" says so...
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Yes, "Officials say" doesn't carry much weight after most of our nation was LIED into an
unjust war. :thumbsdown:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 06:24 AM
Response to Reply #2
16. Does a Flashlight shoved up some one's rectum by the CIA?
Not constitute Rape.

The present occupant of the white house apparently thinks we can't handle the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #16
21. "Does a Flashlight shoved up some one's rectum by the CIA?"
Not constitute Rape.

Apparently, not if the "offiCIAl" says it doesn't...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tempest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 11:21 PM
Response to Original message
3. Then what's the problem with releasing the pictures?

They keep making claims about the pictures not being all that bad, but continue to refuse to release them.

Something is rotten in Denmark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowknows69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 11:26 PM
Response to Original message
4. None of the pictures show rape or just the ones that haven't been destroyed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riverdeep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #4
23. Depends on what the meaning of 'is' is. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueJessamine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 11:40 PM
Response to Original message
5. " Lawmakers expressed renewed outrage at abuses..."
via Daily Kos
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/1/737822/-Salon-Says-No-Rape-Shown-in-the-2000-Torture-Photos



http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-118312783.html

This is a header from a Chicago Tribune article dated May 12, 2004:

Byline: Mike Dorning and Michael Kilian

WASHINGTON _ Lawmakers expressed renewed outrage at abuses in Abu Ghraib prison on Wednesday after privately viewing new pictures and videos of Iraqi detainees being forced to perform sex acts and being beaten by American soldiers.

Some 1,600 photographs and videos that military investigators uncovered in their probe of Abu Ghraib show images of violence more graphic and troubling than the pictures that have appeared so far in the world media, said members of Congress who saw them. Only lawmakers were allowed to view the photos.



SourceWatch

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Abu_Ghraib:_Congressional_Investigation

Noell Straub reported in the May 8, 2004, Boston Herald that the "Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal took an explosive turn yesterday with the revelation that photos and graphic videotapes not yet made public show abuses more horrific than those already seen.

"Signaling the worst revelations are yet to come, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said the additional photos show 'acts that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman.'
"'There are a lot more photographs and videos that exist,' Rumsfeld testified before Congress. ... 'If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse. That's just a fact.'

"The unreleased images show American soldiers beating one prisoner almost to death, apparently raping a female prisoner, acting inappropriately with a dead body, and taping Iraqi guards raping young boys, according to NBC News."

"Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) warned that the scandal, if not dealt with quickly, could turn Iraq into another Vietnam. ... 'We risk losing public support for this conflict,' McCain said. 'As Americans turned away from the Vietnam War, they may turn away from this one.'



CNN:

New Abuse Pics Repulse Congress

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/13/iraq/main617165.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 11:43 PM
Response to Original message
6. And the same 20%ers will believe you, Pentagon "official".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueJessamine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 11:57 PM
Response to Original message
7. White House is actively supporting a new bill to suppress photos of abuse
Greenwald Monday:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/01/photos/index.html

The White House is actively supporting a new bill jointly sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman -- called The Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009 -- that literally has no purpose other than to allow the government to suppress any "photograph taken between September 11, 2001 and January 22, 2009 relating to the treatment of individuals engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States in operations outside of the United States." As long as the Defense Secretary certifies -- with no review possible -- that disclosure would "endanger" American citizens or our troops, then the photographs can be suppressed even if FOIA requires disclosure. The certification lasts 3 years and can be renewed indefinitely. The Senate passed the bill as an amendment last week.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 12:27 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 02:42 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. Boxer and Feingold are actively supporting
a new bill to suppress photos of abuse. The entire Senate voted for it. Why are you twisting this into something against Obama?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Titonwan Donating Member (233 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 06:52 AM
Response to Reply #11
18. When Obama signs this, and he WILL...
what will be your excuse for cheer leading then? Blind allegiance is dangerous, or haven't you learned anything from the last eight years?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 07:36 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. So is blind animosity
The entire Senate is behind this. Blame them all or don't blame any of them. Singling Obama out is just sick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #19
27. No comment on whether the bill is right or wrong, just the desire to make sure Obama is not "singled
Edited on Tue Jun-02-09 09:50 AM by No Elephants
out."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #11
24. What twisting? The Salon story quoted said that the WH is strongly behind the bill.
Edited on Tue Jun-02-09 09:51 AM by No Elephants
Why are YOU accusing the poster of twisting?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 06:28 AM
Response to Reply #7
17. Draft Dodger Joementum Limpmann and his sidekick
Racist Lindsay--- what a pair of ass-clowns.

Yes they are out there and soon it will be a crime to post shit like this










Nice going ass-wipes nothing else needs your attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 12:05 AM
Response to Original message
8. Does not! Does too! Does not! Does too!
I'm figuring whatever they are they must be extremely bad or they'd just release them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 12:55 AM
Response to Original message
10. They don't show rape. They show "Enhanced Fornication." n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dipsydoodle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 04:31 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. Well put.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 02:52 AM
Response to Original message
12. snort
K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 03:54 AM
Response to Original message
13. What a ridiculous farce...
The longer these idiots dither with this, the dumber they look. Unfortunately, we appear to be stuck with four more years of fumbling, bumbling, and general incompetence. Less stupidity than the past eight year disaster, for sure, but stupid nonetheless. With one cluster-fuck after another, they had damned well better deliver a home-run on health care.

Jesus... even Jesse Ventura is starting to look good compared to these clowns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-04-09 06:22 AM
Response to Reply #13
30. four more years of fumbling, bumbling and general incompetence
Looks like this ass-hat's handlers are still in charge



OOPS WE HAD AN "election"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 05:32 AM
Response to Original message
15. "The official did not address whether any such images had ever existed"
or whether they had been destroyed. Gen Taguba now stats that there were rape photos. Why would Gen Taguba say that NOW if it were not true? What would it gain him to lie?

I still remember the faces of senators coming out from their private viewing of those photos - I believe the photos are far worse than what has already been released. And I believe they should be released in full immediately. Get this out in the open so it can be dealt with honestly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 07:55 AM
Response to Original message
20. The Defense Department spokesliar said there are no rape photos.
What a surprise. Who could possibly question that?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueJessamine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
22. Orwellian_Ghost has a post in General Discussion:
Anyone Care To Defend Obama's Support for the New Graham-Lieberman Secrecy Law?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5766581&mesg_id=5766581

snip

Just imagine if any other country did this. Imagine if a foreign government were accused of systematically torturing and otherwise brutally abusing detainees in its custody for years, and there was ample photographic evidence proving the extent and brutality of the abuse. Further imagine that the country's judiciary -- applying decades-old transparency laws -- ruled that the government was legally required to make that evidence public. But in response, that country's President demanded that those transparency laws be retroactively changed for no reason other than to explicitly empower him to keep the photographic evidence suppressed, and a compliant Congress then immediately passed a new law empowering the President to suppress that evidence. What kind of a country passes a law that has no purpose other than to empower its leader to suppress evidence of the torture it inflicted on people? ""


Read the language of the bill; it doesn't even hide the fact that its only objective is to empower the President to conceal evidence of war crimes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riverdeep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #22
25. Keep looking forward!!
Always and forever, forward...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #22
26. Then we live under tyranny.
transparency my ass
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
28. So, are we all at least writing our Sens and Rep and donating to the ACLU? BTW,
concealing evidence of a crime is a crime, too, isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueJessamine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. "concealing evidence of a crime is a crime, too, isn't it? "
Can you say Obstruction of justice?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice

Prosecutors and attorneys general however commit obstruction of justice when they fail to prosecute judges and other government officials for malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance in office.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 08:25 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC