Submit your comments on this article | |||||||
Home Front: WoT | |||||||
Pentagon Blocks Release of Abu Ghraib Images (or not) | |||||||
2005-07-27 | |||||||
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 ârape and murder.â 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 âwhistleblowerâ 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."
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:
"âThe American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience,â Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told reporters after Rumsfeld testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. âWe're talking about rape and murder -- and some very serious charges.â
âA 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 âmale MP guard having sex with a female detainee.â
| |||||||
Posted by:Pholuque Threreth9564 |
#10 The MSM sharks are in overdrive feeding frenzy since they were last outted by the Karen flushing "story" in Newsweak. They couldn't give a shit about fostering incitement around the world. |
Posted by: Captain America 2005-07-27 23:44 |
#9 The ACLU doesn't give a whit about protecting my rights, the only thing that interest them is tearing down out country because they hate it. Dittos for the press. I have planed what I will do if one of these critters crosses my path. The ACLU and Press in this country are outside the protection of the law as far as I am concerned. |
Posted by: Sock Puppet 0â Doom 2005-07-27 14:56 |
#8 Given their recent meme efforts have gone down in flames, Downing St Memo, Rove is a Criminal, etc. and the scandal cupboard is currently bare, well, they're prolly just reverting to their last PR success. Desperation suits them rather well, methinks. I want the MSM stooges and tools lined up against the wall first. |
Posted by: .com 2005-07-27 14:25 |
#7 The point to all this equine necroflailia, of course, is to undermine our resolve to win this war. I'm beginning to wonder how much longer we can sustain our suicidal hyper-tolerance not only of the Muslim extremists among us, but also of our seditious Left. My guess is, not much longer. |
Posted by: Dave D. 2005-07-27 14:12 |
#6 PT's dredging - anything Anti-America is timeless to the idiot left, particularly since it's easier to embellish as age dims memories. See: Ward Churchill and the smallpox blanket. Same scum |
Posted by: Frank G 2005-07-27 13:47 |
#5 Abu Ghraib, again? What is this, a slow news day or something? This crap was old many, many months ago. |
Posted by: Dave D. 2005-07-27 13:11 |
#4 My own suspicion is that critics of the war in Iraq want the photos released because visual images can be replayed on TV stations throughout the Muslim world. Ding! That's the goal. Given that one of the London bombers said he was motivated by the -- false -- reports of torture at Gitmo, the whole reason to get the pictures out is to motivate more attacks. The press, the ACLU, the left -- they hate this country, its people, and its Constitution. |
Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-07-27 12:49 |
#3 I don't doubt that there were abuses at abu Ghraib -- we know there were. The specific ones mentioned below: womens' breasts exposed, prisoners threatened with dogs, simulated or real sex between prisoners and the deaths of several prisoners - have been acknowledged by the Pentagon and were under investigation well before the press got wind of them. And, SECDEF Rumsfeld has testified that he found the abuses horrible, that they were not officially sanctioned and deserved punishment - which has happened to at least several of the perpetrators. Are there worse abuses that have not been made public? Possibly -- but an article based on a snapshot in time over a year ago isn't quite persuasive to me. Unnamed senators speculating -- 14 months ago -- on what MIGHT have happened is less than useful. My own suspicion is that critics of the war in Iraq want the photos released because visual images can be replayed on TV stations throughout the Muslim world. We saw the impact of this strategy when Newsweek's incorrect article about Koran desecration led to riots and death. Absolutely no mitigation of that by Newsweek's later retraction of the story -- the damage was done by the images beamed around the world to millions of people, many of whom are functionally illiterate. Steve notes, albeit with a bit of energy, that a key allegation in this article from a media insiders journal is factually incorrect. Once again, a damaging allegation is made that is later withdrawn -- but the original lie continues to circulate. |
Posted by: rkb 2005-07-27 12:32 |
#2 I saw this Article on the Left Coaster blog earlier. I got the impression that there might be children and women involved and that the U.S. wanted to black out their faces. I patiently explained to the LLL that it was a good choice to withhold and black out photos if they involved pedophilia. Also it made no sense to release photos of abuse (they want to call it interrogations) without covering the faces of the abused. They are still of the impression that Rumsfeld is responsible and personally ordered, if not participated in, the abuse at Abu Grahib. Friggin moonbats! Nothing is added by the release of these photos unless Senator Kennedy needs to add them to his personal collection. |
Posted by: Flavise Flatle6161 2005-07-27 12:28 |
#1 In the same period, reporter Seymour Hersh, who helped uncover the scandal, said in a speech before an ACLU convention: More complete bullshit from the press. Hersh did NOTHING about Abu Ghraib except reprint rumors, defense lawyer spin, and lie, lie, lie. It was uncovered by the military. It as reported by the military in daily press briefings months before Hersh got his first hard-on over the story. When will the press be held accountable for its lies? |
Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-07-27 12:23 |