NationStates Jolt Archive

I didn't see a thread on this, so I figured I'd start one. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5395830/Abu-Ghraib-abuse-photos-show-rape.html)


Abu Ghraib abuse photos 'show rape'
Photographs of alleged prisoner abuse which Barack Obama is attempting to censor include images of apparent rape and sexual abuse, it has emerged.


By Duncan Gardham, Security Correspondent and Paul Cruickshank
Last Updated: 8:21AM BST 28 May 2009

At least one picture shows an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner while another is said to show a male translator raping a male detainee.

Further photographs are said to depict sexual assaults on prisoners with objects including a truncheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube.

Another apparently shows a female prisoner having her clothing forcibly removed to expose her breasts.

Detail of the content emerged from Major General Antonio Taguba, the former army officer who conducted an inquiry into the Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq.

Allegations of rape and abuse were included in his 2004 report but the fact there were photographs was never revealed. He has now confirmed their existence in an interview with the Daily Telegraph.

The graphic nature of some of the images may explain the US President’s attempts to block the release of an estimated 2,000 photographs from prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan despite an earlier promise to allow them to be published.

Maj Gen Taguba, who retired in January 2007, said he supported the President’s decision, adding: “These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency.

“I am not sure what purpose their release would serve other than a legal one and the consequence would be to imperil our troops, the only protectors of our foreign policy, when we most need them, and British troops who are trying to build security in Afghanistan.

“The mere description of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it.”

In April, Mr Obama’s administration said the photographs would be released and it would be “pointless to appeal” against a court judgment in favour of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

But after lobbying from senior military figures, Mr Obama changed his mind saying they could put the safety of troops at risk.

Earlier this month, he said: “The most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to inflame anti-American public opinion and to put our troops in greater danger.”

It was thought the images were similar to those leaked five years ago, which showed naked and bloody prisoners being intimidated by dogs, dragged around on a leash, piled into a human pyramid and hooded and attached to wires.

Mr Obama seemed to reinforce that view by adding: “I want to emphasise that these photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib.”

The latest photographs relate to 400 cases of alleged abuse between 2001 and 2005 in Abu Ghraib and six other prisons. Mr Obama said the individuals involved had been “identified, and appropriate actions” taken.

Maj Gen Taguba’s internal inquiry into the abuse at Abu Ghraib, included sworn statements by 13 detainees, which, he said in the report, he found “credible based on the clarity of their statements and supporting evidence provided by other witnesses.”

Among the graphic statements, which were later released under US freedom of information laws, is that of Kasim Mehaddi Hilas in which he says: “I saw [name of a translator] ******* a kid, his age would be about 15 to 18 years. The kid was hurting very bad and they covered all the doors with sheets. Then when I heard screaming I climbed the door because on top it wasn’t covered and I saw [name] who was wearing the military uniform, putting his **** in the little kid’s ***…. and the female soldier was taking pictures.”

The translator was an American Egyptian who is now the subject of a civil court case in the US.

Three detainees, including the alleged victim, refer to the use of a phosphorescent tube in the sexual abuse and another to the use of wire, while the victim also refers to part of a policeman’s “stick” all of which were apparently photographed.

This is hardly the first time such allegations have been made, but I believe this is the first time someone who was in the military openly made them.
Blocking the photographs from being released is a travesty, but I recall there being another thread on that earlier. Instead, perhaps we should focus our discussion on the content of the photographs, as well as the implications of such.
At the moment, I am slightly too emotionally invested to offer a coherent statement on this, but I shall attempt to gain control of myself and post something later on.

That really doesn't surprise me, which is very sad to say.

I don't think releasing the pictures top the public will achieve anything, but hiding them is just asking for trouble. It reeks to high heaven of a cover up, especially with the Major General talking about how they need to hide these pictures to protect the image of the American military. Find out who these soldiers are, and use these pictures as evidence in their court martial.

I am both sad and disgusted by this. But, as Yenke-Bin posted, hardly surprising.

I don't think releasing the pictures top the public will achieve anything, but hiding them is just asking for trouble. It reeks to high heaven of a cover up, especially with the Major General talking about how they need to hide these pictures to protect the image of the American military. Find out who these soldiers are, and use these pictures as evidence in their court martial.

What I would like to see, personally, is the following:

1) Photos should not be released to the public, not at this time. They will only be used as ammunition for our enemies to bring more people to their cause.

2) The photos should be used for trial purposes in a closed court, and it should be publicized that the people responsible are being tried for their crimes.

Squaddies, not my faverite people. I don't belive that releasing these pictures is the right thing to do, it would certianly endanger the troops.

What I would like to see, personally, is the following:

1) Photos should not be released to the public, not at this time. They will only be used as ammunition for our enemies to bring more people to their cause.
Of course, if the pictures are intentionally kept from the public that fact will be used as ammunition for your enemies. It's hard to say which is worse.
2) The photos should be used for trial purposes in a closed court, and it should be publicized that the people responsible are being tried for their crimes.

Are courts martial normally open to the public anyway?

Of course, if the pictures are intentionally kept from the public that fact will be used as ammunition for your enemies. It's hard to say which is worse.

Well, I think the pictures would be worse. A picture's worth a thousand words and all that.

Are courts martial normally open to the public anyway?

Dunno.

What is the point of releasing the pics? To satisfy the cravings of sick fucks on the internet? The deescriptions are enough, and let those trying the case see them....but it serves no beneficial purpose to let them out into the public, not to mention the further victimisation of the victims were this to happen. Oh yay! I was raped! Now people get to fap to pictures of it, isn't life grand?

I agree that the pictures shouldn't be released to the public. However, I would hope that during the investigation and trials, these pictures are used to find out the truth, and prosecute anyone that violated the UCMJ at Abu Ghraib.

Well, I think the pictures would be worse. A picture's worth a thousand words and all that.
Hmm, probably.
What is the point of releasing the pics? To satisfy the cravings of sick fucks on the internet? The deescriptions are enough, and let those trying the case see them....but it serves no beneficial purpose to let them out into the public, not to mention the further victimisation of the victims were this to happen. Oh yay! I was raped! Now people get to fap to pictures of it, isn't life grand?

There's that too.

If the pictures exist they should be used as evidence in a trial against the perpetrators. They should not be released to the public as they victims have the right to privacy.

I have a callous disregard for the lives of detainees, so I don't think the United States should take any prisoners when they are ununiformed. It is better to just shoot them dead on the battlefield.
That way the US wouldn't have to deal with holding people nobody wants.

What is the point of releasing the pics? To satisfy the cravings of sick fucks on the internet? The deescriptions are enough, and let those trying the case see them....but it serves no beneficial purpose to let them out into the public, not to mention the further victimisation of the victims were this to happen. Oh yay! I was raped! Now people get to fap to pictures of it, isn't life grand?

This is also my thought on the subject. If there were pictures of me being raped, I sure as fucking hell wouldn't want them published.

If the pictures exist they should be used as evidence in a trial against the perpetrators. They should not be released to the public as they victims have the right to privacy.

I agree with this, I think.

The confirmation that rape, torture etc. happened to a much larger degree than just the random acts of a "few bad apples" is not surprising. The US military is hardly the paragon of ethical behaviour.

I didn't see a thread on this, so I figured I'd start one. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5395830/Abu-Ghraib-abuse-photos-show-rape.html)



This is hardly the first time such allegations have been made, but I believe this is the first time someone who was in the military openly made them.
Blocking the photographs from being released is a travesty, but I recall there being another thread on that earlier. Instead, perhaps we should focus our discussion on the content of the photographs, as well as the implications of such.
At the moment, I am slightly too emotionally invested to offer a coherent statement on this, but I shall attempt to gain control of myself and post something later on.
the travesty is the pretense that it was just a few bad apples. as if some rubes from west virginia suddenly decided to make ass pyramids all on their own.

these pictures, especially the ones of rape, should not be released without the express permission of the victims.

the travesty is the pretense that it was just a few bad apples. as if some rubes from west virginia suddenly decided to make ass pyramids all on their own.

these pictures, especially the ones of rape, should not be released without the express permission of the victims.

Finally someone says it. I was just going to ask why, in all the talk over weather the photos should be released, no one ever mentions the privacy of the individuals in question. Not just the soldiers in the photos, but the victims. Does anyone think they're likely to want their humiliation posted all over the world? Or is it just assumed that if they were detained, they must be guilty, and that somehow as a result their rights are not a factor?

And honestly, why hasn't Obama used this as an excuse? At least then it wouldn't look like he's just covering up what the military has done.

Finally someone says it. I was just going to ask why, in all the talk over weather the photos should be released, no one ever mentions the privacy of the individuals in question. Not just the soldiers in the photos, but the victims. Does anyone think they're likely to want their humiliation posted all over the world? Or is it just assumed that if they were detained, they must be guilty, and that somehow as a result their rights are not a factor?

And honestly, why hasn't Obama used this as an excuse? At least then it wouldn't look like he's just covering up what the military has done.

Because it's possible to release the photos with blurred faces, for example. While an ethical consideration, it wouldn't stand up to the pressure and demand of the media, among others.

True, you could blur the faces. Which is the bare minimum of what should be done if they are released.

Because it's possible to release the photos with blurred faces, for example. While an ethical consideration, it wouldn't stand up to the pressure and demand of the media, among others.

True, you could blur the faces. Which is the bare minimum of what should be done if they are released.

Ask a whole bunch of women if they'd like to have rape photos released even with the faces blurred out and what'll be the likely reaction? Blocking out the identity of the victims does nothing to diminish the humiliation and agony of knowing their violation has been seen all across the world.

True, you could blur the faces. Which is the bare minimum of what should be done if they are released.

The people who were raped would still recognize the photos as themselves. Publishing them throughout the world, which is what would happen if the photos were released, would only force them to relive their ordeals countless times.

The photos should only be published with the express written consent of the victims in the photos. Even still, we shouldn't even be requesting such consent. There's no reason the actual photos need to be seen outside those involved in the trials. Publishing them to the public does no service that describing the acts therein does not also accomplish. The clamor to have them published seems, to me, to be coming primarily from those who stand to profit the most from them, namely, those in the media.

Ask a whole bunch of women if they'd like to have rape photos released even with the faces blurred out and what'll be the likely reaction? Blocking out the identity of the victims does nothing to diminish the humiliation and agony of knowing their violation has been seen all across the world.

Well, I did say it was the bare minimum. I'd much rather they weren't published or ever viewed outside of court.

I'm wondering whether we should court-martial the soldiers ourselves... or turn them over to the Iraqis.

Yet another thing that can be used as a rallying tool by the enemy that happened while W was commander in chief.

*places the piece into the puzzle*

since when was the government obliged to make public images used in a trial?

I'm wondering whether we should court-martial the soldiers ourselves... or turn them over to the Iraqis.

no I say the US follows its military laws, gets to bottom of this and does its best to make sure it never happens again

The US military is hardly the paragon of ethical behaviour.

I see and is this coming from some experience you have like for example working for years within the MP or are you just spouting shit about the ethics of over 2 million people?

If the pictures exist they should be used as evidence in a trial against the perpetrators. They should not be released to the public as they victims have the right to privacy.

It is not normal to release rape pictures or videos to the public.
Victim protection concerns normally keeps these to the court rooms.

I agree with this, I think.

The confirmation that rape, torture etc. happened to a much larger degree than just the random acts of a "few bad apples" is not surprising. The US military is hardly the paragon of ethical behaviour.

Oh really?
http://rokdrop.com/2008/02/27/gi-myths-is-the-us-military-crime-rate-in-korea-out-of-control/


These statistics are even more interesting when compared by individual crime. For example by using the same equation as above, for assaults 1 in every 183 Koreans are arrested for assault compared to 1 in every 1,718 USFK servicemembers. The Korean statistic for rape is much high then the USFK number with 1 in every 6,350 Koreans are arrested for rape compared to 1 in every 9,166 USFK servicemembers. For combined burglary and theft 1 person is arrested for every 181 Koreans compared to 1 person arrested for every 6875 USFK servicemembers. Finally, for murder 1 in every 45,623 Koreans are arrested for murder compared to zero arrests for murder for USFK servicemembers.

And this is Korea with a much lower crime rate, then the US.
I would conclude that soldiers are much less likely to commit crimes than the general population.
This would in fact be a paragon of ethical behavior.

Oh really?
http://rokdrop.com/2008/02/27/gi-myths-is-the-us-military-crime-rate-in-korea-out-of-control/


And this is Korea with a much lower crime rate, then the US.
I would conclude that soldiers are much less likely to commit crimes than the general population.
This would in fact be a paragon of ethical behavior.

And then on the other end of the spectrum, we have Okinawa.

And then on the other end of the spectrum, we have Okinawa.

http://www.dprkstudies.org/documents/asia015.html


SOFA personnel comprise approximately 3.9 percent of the populating and committed about 1.7 percent of crimes (average, 1972-2001), or about half as much crime compared to the entire population of Okinawa. In the past ten years of data (1992-2001) SOFA personnel committed only 0.82 percent of crimes in Okinawa, or nearly five times less than the general population. (The Number of, 2001)

And honestly, why hasn't Obama used this as an excuse? At least then it wouldn't look like he's just covering up what the military has done.

Actually, if you look at what the Obama Administration has done as an overall strategy, it's been remarkably effective so far.

When something comes up, they immediately are seen to be looking into it, and listening to all arguments.

A couple of days in, they start saying either 'that's not what happened' or 'we're going to fix this' in a calm and measured pace.

A week later, they're basically mopping up a few last points.

Two weeks later, whatever it was is ignored by everyone except the most rabid of opponents.


It worked all the way through Obama's campaign, also - love the guy or hate him, he's got this particular thing covered tight.

This is hardly the first time such allegations have been made, but I believe this is the first time someone who was in the military openly made them.
Blocking the photographs from being released is a travesty, but I recall there being another thread on that earlier. Instead, perhaps we should focus our discussion on the content of the photographs, as well as the implications of such.
At the moment, I am slightly too emotionally invested to offer a coherent statement on this, but I shall attempt to gain control of myself and post something later on.


Blocking the photos isn't a travesty. I, for one, really don't want to see them - and I don't want them floating around being used as ammunition for whatever crusade against whoever... comes rolling along next.

The photos SHOULD be part of a full investigation.

http://www.dprkstudies.org/documents/asia015.html

That's for 2001. Got any more current surveys?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/02/11/japan.rape/index.html

That's for 2001. Got any more current surveys?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/02/11/japan.rape/index.html

I don't even see a verdict much less a statistical analysis.

Also,
http://www.mahalo.com/Tyrone_Luther_Hadnott

Charges in Japan were dropped after the teen withdrew the charges,

He was court martial, for violating the UCMJ, military age of consent(including touching) is 16. Japan minimum age of consent is 13, though the prefectures have ages between 13-17 and haven't found Okinawa's law yet.

What is the point of releasing the pics?
To obey the law. The photographs were requested under the Freedom of Information Act, at least according to this news story.

I don't think releasing the pictures top the public will achieve anything, but hiding them is just asking for trouble. It reeks to high heaven of a cover up, especially with the Major General talking about how they need to hide these pictures to protect the image of the American military. Find out who these soldiers are, and use these pictures as evidence in their court martial.
That's what I don't get. They're admitting that these practises went on, but say that it needs to be ignored for fear of harming their image. How does that work?
Surely, using them to prosecute the people who committed these acts will do more for improving their image than letting them get away with it.

I'm wondering whether we should court-martial the soldiers ourselves... or turn them over to the Iraqis.

Would turning them over to the Iraqis essentially be the same as subjecting them to torture and death? What is Iraqi law like on subjects like this?

I don't think releasing the pictures top the public will achieve anything, but hiding them is just asking for trouble. It reeks to high heaven of a cover up, especially with the Major General talking about how they need to hide these pictures to protect the image of the American military. Find out who these soldiers are, and use these pictures as evidence in their court martial.

If the military cares about it's image then there's a much simpler way of preserving it than lobbying the President to hide evidence of rape and torture. They could just not rape and torture people and take photographs of themselves doing it.

We're a nation whose adoration of the military borders on religious. And just like a religion, we get irrational when people make perfectly valid criticisms. When you help cover up an organization's crimes, you do nothing to help that organization improve, and the military itself now has no incentive to keep soldiers from behaving this way.

Justice demands that the pictures be released. Things never work out when a new president let's generals bully him into doing what he didn't want to do. Just look at JFK.

This is hardly the first time such allegations have been made, but I believe this is the first time someone who was in the military openly made them.
Blocking the photographs from being released is a travesty, but I recall there being another thread on that earlier. Instead, perhaps we should focus our discussion on the content of the photographs, as well as the implications of such.

US-controlled prisons are a hellhole.
In other news, water is wet.

I see and is this coming from some experience you have like for example working for years within the MP or are you just spouting shit about the ethics of over 2 million people?
Nope, just calling it as I see it. From Guantanamo to Bagram to Abu Ghraib via the treatment of civilians in Iraq to the little things, like the treatment of homosexuals and women in the armed forces.

Oh really?
http://rokdrop.com/2008/02/27/gi-myths-is-the-us-military-crime-rate-in-korea-out-of-control/


And this is Korea with a much lower crime rate, then the US.
I would conclude that soldiers are much less likely to commit crimes than the general population.
This would in fact be a paragon of ethical behavior.
That's nice, but not convincing. They're less likely to commit crimes in Korea. Very well. Doesn't speak to the atrocious and horrid acts that has been perpetrated by US soldiers with the more or less silent blessing of their officers and command on the battlefield in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Nope, just calling it as I see it. From Guantanamo to Bagram to Abu Ghraib via the treatment of civilians in Iraq to the little things, like the treatment of homosexuals and women in the armed forces.


That's nice, but not convincing. They're less likely to commit crimes in Korea. Very well. Doesn't speak to the atrocious and horrid acts that has been perpetrated by US soldiers with the more or less silent blessing of their officers and command on the battlefield in Afghanistan and Iraq.

It is rather hard to measure war time issues. No one keeps statistics on what the civilians do to each other.
My point was that Peacetime US soldiers are infact paragons of virtue.

.....
I would conclude that soldiers are much less likely to commit crimes than the general population.
This would in fact be a paragon of ethical behavior.

Really? I would conclude that soldiers are much less likely to get charged with a crime than the general population. Which is what your data says. It may be because of ethical behaviour. Or it may be because they have some sort of power that allows them to get away with crime more easily.