Sy Hersh: The photos were being used to blackmail the detainees...

That's why there were so many of them.

That makes sooo much more sense than "there were trophies" or "they were being sent to porno sites"

Here's the new article:

http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?040517fa_fact2

I just saw his CNN interview. I'm reading his new article now...

Take action on story at http://www.amnestyusa.org/

open letter to bush from amnesty
usa admin has received many reports over the last two years.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/document.do?id=77EC1B8868C9828F80256E8D0041F7B5
http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/document.do?id=B04794EDFE431D1885256E8D0051A241

abuse have the guts, gall, and nerve to bitch about being caught. That's what this is all about, isn't it? They got caught. And then there's the remark about Taguba, the guy who brought it all out:

<snip>

“He’s not regarded as a hero in some circles in the Pentagon,” a retired Army major general said of Taguba. “He’s the guy who blew the whistle, and the Army will pay the price for his integrity. The leadership does not like to have people make bad news public.”

<snip>

Tell me again please, why are we in Iraq?

edit: to fix punctuation

And I'd bet money that most of these people were not shooting at soldiers but were dragged out of their homes in the middle of the night before being subjected to this humiliation - hence, the "insurgency." I've been saying all along they're not Saddam loyalists or foreign fighters, but guys from the neighborhood. And now we know why they became insurgents. Why aren't more people getting this? We all saw the raids; now we're seeing what happened afterward.

Read the last paragraph of the following post and consider that this had been going on for months:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1560141

On edit: Also be sure to click on the link that maggrwaggr posted in #9. Don't this just explain it all.

in fact it explains a whole ton of it.

Why doesn't the media do a better job of reporting this?

Please click on the link, and read jmatthan's post #20. Here is part of what he says:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x542460#542733

From my personal experience with my many Shiaite friends in India, dogs are religiously symbolically unclean for them. Even if a drop of saliva from a dog touches their clothes, they have to have a bath and change their clothes.

Doesn't this looks more sinister and evil every single day??

are raking it in off the war? That means the war needs to be viewed as good, and only a few people are bad.

Pointy Girl will have a lot of time to figure things out, sitting in her cell at Leavenworth or wherever. Do you think she'll realize she was only ever there because she was a girl? I'd bet no.

....

The photographing of prisoners, both in Afghanistan and in Iraq, seems to have been not random but, rather, part of the dehumanizing interrogation process. The Times published an interview last week with Hayder Sabbar Abd, who claimed, convincingly, to be one of the mistreated Iraqi prisoners in the Abu Ghraib photographs. Abd told Ian Fisher, the Times reporter, that his ordeal had been recorded, almost constantly, by cameras, which added to his humiliation. He remembered how the camera flashed repeatedly as soldiers told to him to masturbate and beat him when he refused.

....

of helping to support Sy's work.

If you saw a picture of relatives in compromised positions, would you capitulate?

neighborhood"... Not that they would (lest they be caught), but the threat was probably pretty effective. Or, as Sy Hersh keeps saying, TOO effective - the tortured tells you what you want to hear - not what you need to hear.

you were gay. What would you have said or done to avoid your parents finding out? I was willing to do quite a bit of another persons homework but did finally balk after awhile.

the truth.

From what many reports are saying, threats of this nature against these prisoners was a total waste of time, because they had no information to give!

If you read some of the stories of the Spanish Inquisition or the European witch-hunts, people were tortured to get them to implicate others. If they didn't know anything, they lied, and more people just as innocent as they were arrested, tortured, and killed. It happened in the 1950s with McCarthy -- and I don't mean Eugene.

Torture -- physical, mental, or just the threat -- is not an effective means of getting at the truth. In some individual cases, perhaps, but overall, no. totally counterproductive.

I would presume if I had been the village idiot I wouldn't have been asked to do homework. But, I had taken the post to mean that blackmail at all wouldn't be needed.

They knew they had been tortured, maybe the pictures were to keep them from spilling the beans on that at a later dtae.

The fact that there were so many different pictures taken with different cameras did not make sense unless the pictures were part of the process. One of the techniques used to break these detainees down included taking the pictures and then showing the pictures to the detainees with the threat that the pictures would be distributed their their family and community. This was evidently a very effective way of "breaking" these detainees.

If the pictures were only meant as blackmail/threats to the prisoners, there would have been no reason to distribute them to fellow soldiers, to put them on computers as screen savers, etc. You're attributing a logical motive to what were basically illogical actions.

I'm not a black-and-white person; I've never been able to cut things that neatly, and needless to say it gets me in a lot of trouble, sometimes even here on DU.

But even so, I think it's part of the ugliness of this whole situation -- it goes beyond one incident -- that assigning both responsibility and accountability is going to be a multi-faceted process.

Yes, the individual troops have to share the blame and responsibility. If Joe Darby had the inate decency to turn his fellow soldiers in, then the "natural hijinks" theory is blown out the window. I'm sure that most of our American and coalition troops are basically decent people who are in a rotten place doing a rotten job and doing it as well as they can, and many of them are probably just as outraged at this shit as we are. Then again, there are the Rush Limbaughs of the world -- excuse me while I wash my hands after typing his name -- who see nothing wrong with it.

So I think certainly there will be superiors all along the chain of command who are appalled that this went on and there will be others who shrug and say it's no big deal, they're just rag heads and terrorists and A-rabs, etc. Karpinski seems to be one of those shruggers, and Taguba seems to be a bit more decent. We'll see.

It's a funny thing about the institution of the modern American military -- while on the surface it offers varous "career" opportunities and the prospect of "money for college," it remains at heart a weapon of war. Soldiers at all ranks are still part of a machine designed for the most efficient execution of mass murder. Whether they are supply clerks accounting for the distribution of arms and ammunition along with the distribution of medical supplies, they are still cogs in the machine. Their FIRST responsibility is the military defense of 'America,' whatever that means.

It's a sad commentary on our times and our country that the training in techniques of mass murder are the means by which lower-income people attempt to work their way out of their economic status. Money for college, and all that, and a chance to be a doctor or a lawyer or an accountant or something other than a pizza delivery person or a cab driver for the rest of their lives. How many of them make it out? How many of them are disillusioned or discouraged -- or killed -- in the process?

How many run up against such a brick wall of cognitive dissonance that they can't reconcile their goals with their means?

And on the other hand, how many join the military because it provides a venue for just the kind of mayhem they like, which may be illegal on the outside? What happens when you mix the two populations?

What happens when you mix a naive, small-town girl who joined the army to get out of her small-town world, with a divorced prison guard who has a couple of restraining orders put out on him by his ex-wife? What happens when you put the two of them, and who knows how many like- and unlike-minded folks in charge of a volatile situation with little training and lots of stress and lots of fear?

Am I excusing Lynndie England? Not on your life. Joe Darby knew better. But what else was going on with Lynndie England? And what about her superiors? Who knew, when did they know, how much did they know?

I think it's human nature to evade admission of wrongdoing whenever possible. Those in vulnerable positions may end up confessing to crimes they didn't commit, while at the same time not "ratting" on those who ought to share much of the blame. Those in more powerful positions may continue to deny responsiblity -- but they can't deny accountability.

* said he was going to restore honor and integrity to the oval office. That means he was going to take personal responsibility to make the government more honorable. He failed. And as Gephardt put it so perfectly, * has failed miserably.

People need to be punished, that's for sure. But they need to be punished in proportion to their power to have made things happen differently. Lynndie England didn't have a lot of power to make things different: she didn't have the power to keep herself out of Iraq, out of Abu Ghraib, out of the sphere of influence of her apparently accomplished bully of a boyfriend. Her superiors and in turn their superiors have much more responsibility.

The honorable thing for the * minions to do, and for * himself to do, is to admit the mistakes, apologize, take steps to correct them. For those who had direct involvement in the crimes and cover-ups -- and I include at least Myers for sure (he knew enough about the abuse to be in contact with CBS) and probably Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz -- there must be the admission of mistakes so great that they are not fit to continue in their positions. Will it happen? I ain't holdin' my breath.

But will the pressure be placed on the * administration to see that high heads roll? These are people who, at the very highest level of all, are pathologically incapable of admitting mistakes. You can't fix what you don't acknowledge is broke.

Stay tuned

Same Tansy time, same Tansy channel

nt

In a way that little else does these days.

Either bring in some info about the insurgents or we will release the photos. These cameras were mounted in the prison and were set to take a photo every few seconds. These were pros (read CIA) who was doing this shit. Take that to the bank. The Stasi used to do the same thing.

Don

you can take that to the bank too.

All of the pictures I've seen showed people with bags over their heads. Since most Muslim people don't parade around naked or wear easily identifiable tattoos what use is a photo of someone whose only identifiable feature is completely hidden? :shrug:

Would someone please explain how this "makes sense"? :evilgrin:

Our soldiers look like fucking Nazis in that photo.

and with a purpose: destroy Rumsfeld et al. Whomever is leaking will continue to ratchet up until they are gone.

.....that what is going on in our name is totally offensive and wrong beyond belief. I am aware that 'trophy photos' have been around since WWI and I have personally seen collections from both world wars, Korea and Vietnam. I believe that there are photos taken for different reasons by different people, some for psy-ops purposes and many by ordinary troops stuck in extraordinary circumstances as 'trophy's' to remember or document their experiences in the war. It pains me to think that as a species we've still not evolved past this type of behavior despite how 'civilized' we may claim to be. Never forget that humans are the only species that willingly shit in their own nests. :(

IRAQ is Arabic for VIETNAM!

been 100% spot on in his reporting. If Sy says that's why the pictures were taken, I believe him.

.....what I'm saying is that if it was or still is official policy to use photos in that manner (blackmail/psy-ops) then one can assume from the stories being told by the abused prisoners of 'seeing multiple flashes' (even while hooded) as pictures were being taken, that no one cared who else present might be taking 'trophy' photos as well. In fact, the numbers of photos with prisoners hooded and NOT identifiable in any way would tend to support the supposition that photographing prisoners was indeed officially sanctioned and just business as usual. Apparently no one seemed to care who was taking photos and for what purpose.

Photography is one of my many hobbies and I know I'm always aware of the flash of a camera from inside another room even with the door closed just from the leakage under the door or out the windows! It's kind of hard to hide and I would think it would be especially hard in Saddam's 'dark dank prisons'. If photographing prisoners was forbidden then someone would most assuredly have noticed.

Until today the only picture I had seen where the prisoner was identifiable was the lovely shot of 'pointy girl' with the guy on a leash. I am of the opinion that the set of photos featuring 'pointy' were indeed of the 'trophy' variety as they would serve no useful purpose as a tool to blackmail the unidentifiable prisoners. The fact that that set and several others have surfaced lends much credence to the probability that blackmail/psy-ops photos were regularly taken as well. :(

....
BLITZER: Based on what you learned, who took all these pictures?

HERSH: We know -- The New Yorker looked, analyzed -- the photo department analyzed the camera. There were two cameras operating at the time. This was a 12-minute sequence inside a prison. There were two cameras shooting these photos over 12 minutes, so we know two cameras were working.

And we know from the other -- in the other photographs we've seen, and from stories from one of the prisoners who was interviewed last week by The New York Times, one of the guys that showed up in the horrible pictures the week before, one of those naked people being forced to do awful acts to themselves. And he said all during that process there were cameras going.

So I'm here to say that the evidence suggests that cameras and the use of cameras was part of the interrogation process. And I'll tell you what somebody has told me, which is that one of the ways you could possibly get more leverage on a potential witness or if it's somebody you want to interrogate, is to threaten, you know, shame -- we talked about humiliation and shame -- is to threaten a prisoner with taking these photographs and showing them to neighbors or showing them to others. It would be a greater source of humiliation to have others actually see the problems he had in prison.
....

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0405/09/le.00.html

Wow!

Few of the victims' faces were visible on the photos.

How does this blackmail work when the victim isn't identifiable?

I doubt the victims' families could recognize the victim from any of the photos released thus far.

If Sy is saying that the photos would be circulated to "warn" other detainees, I can buy that. But if I'm supposed to believe that a victim's father would be disgraced into cooperation by an unidentified photo, I don't know that I buy that.

you've cited one photograph with the face partially visible. I don't think I'd be comfortable making a positive ID of that man from that photograph.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say his mother and father can. I'll also concede that the photos we've seen so far are just the tip of the iceberg, so it's possible most of the photos identify the victim.

But the majority of what we've seen so far would not be useful tools for blackmail.

How do the mechanics of this "blackmail" work? I'm not asking to be deliberately obtuse, I just don't understand from Sy's article or the "Of course, that's it!" posts in this thread.

It also doesn't explain how the perps are often as much of a subject of the photos as the victims. From the article:

"One of the new photographs shows a young soldier, wearing a dark jacket over his uniform and smiling into the camera, in the corridor of the jail. In the background are two Army dog handlers, in full camouflage combat gear, restraining two German shepherds. The dogs are barking at a man who is partly obscured from the camera’s view by the smiling soldier."

AND

...a group of armed American soldiers "blindfolded Mr. Lindh, and took several pictures of Mr. Lindh and themselves with Mr. Lindh. In one, the soldiers scrawled ‘shithead’ across Mr. Lindh’s blindfold and posed with him. . . ."

They did this to BLACKMAIL him?

It's as much about the soldiers as the prisoners.

Also, I didn't see Sy use the word "blackmail" in the article at all. Please show me how you've drawn this conclusion.

....
BLITZER: Based on what you learned, who took all these pictures?

HERSH: We know -- The New Yorker looked, analyzed -- the photo department analyzed the camera. There were two cameras operating at the time. This was a 12-minute sequence inside a prison. There were two cameras shooting these photos over 12 minutes, so we know two cameras were working.

And we know from the other -- in the other photographs we've seen, and from stories from one of the prisoners who was interviewed last week by The New York Times, one of the guys that showed up in the horrible pictures the week before, one of those naked people being forced to do awful acts to themselves. And he said all during that process there were cameras going.

So I'm here to say that the evidence suggests that cameras and the use of cameras was part of the interrogation process. And I'll tell you what somebody has told me, which is that one of the ways you could possibly get more leverage on a potential witness or if it's somebody you want to interrogate, is to threaten, you know, shame -- we talked about humiliation and shame -- is to threaten a prisoner with taking these photographs and showing them to neighbors or showing them to others. It would be a greater source of humiliation to have others actually see the problems he had in prison.
....

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0405/09/le.00.html

would compound the humiliation, regardless if anyone ever saw the photographs.

Thank you for the clarification.

((McCain did his best to bring this up at the hearings))


The techniques devised in the system, called R2I - resistance to interrogation - match the crude exploitation and abuse of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib jail in Baghdad.

<snip>

He said British and US military intelligence soldiers were trained in these techniques, which were taught at the joint services interrogation centre in Ashford, Kent, now transferred to the former US base at Chicksands.

<snip>

"Most people just laugh that off during mock training exercises, but the whole experience is horrible. Two of my colleagues couldn't cope with the training at the time. One walked out saying 'I've had enough', and the other had a breakdown. It's exceedingly disturbing," said the former Special Boat Squadron officer, who asked that his identity be withheld for security reasons.

<snip>

When the interrogation techniques are used on British soldiers for training purposes, they are subject to a strict 48-hour time limit, and a supervisor and a psychologist are always present. It is recognised that in inexperienced hands, prisoners can be plunged into psychosis.

The spectrum of R2I techniques also includes keeping prisoners naked most of the time. This is what the Abu Ghraib photographs show, along with inmates being forced to crawl on a leash; forced to masturbate in front of a female soldier; mimic oral sex with other male prisoners; and form piles of naked, hooded men.

The full battery of methods includes hooding, sleep deprivation, time disorientation and depriving prisoners not only of dignity, but of fundamental human needs, such as warmth, water and food.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1212197,00.html

Kind of shoots the "aberrant behavior" theory out of the water, huh?

The link is in my sig line. This shit was coordinated by Doug Feith himself.

Explosive huh?

There's not a bunker deep enough for those guys!

I'll start a thread. Thanks

And if you don't, I will... :evilgrin:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1565507

And you are, by the way, free to repost any of my stuff anywhere.

:thumbsup: