Why the Pentagon is blocking Abu Ghraib images

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Gabriella84, Jul 25, 2005.

  1. Gabriella84
    Online

    Gabriella84 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000990590

    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."

    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.”
     
  2. archangel
    Online

    archangel Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    CAN GABBY KEEP HER POST TOGETHER/ SHE ALREADY STARTED A [POST ON THIS ISSUE]...GEEZ! :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh:
     
  3. Gabriella84
    Online

    Gabriella84 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    If you can't attack what the post is about, you might as well attack the fact that the post exists.
     
  4. OCA
    Offline

    OCA Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    7,014
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Washington D.C.
    Ratings:
    +223
    No reason to block them, they are the images of a soldier doing a good day's work, they are the definition of patriotism.
     
  5. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    What is the age of consent in Iraq? Why would the left want to deny the sexuality of young iraqi boys? Don't they deserve love?

    But on the for real tip, I bet none of this comes out and it turns out to be a total lie.
     
  6. Gabriella84
    Online

    Gabriella84 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0

    I can certainly see why these images would be deemed patriotic and enjoyable to you. Perhaps, when the whole thing is released on DVD, you can enjoy them over a nice cold beer.
     
  7. archangel
    Online

    archangel Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Disneyland troll...he/she could care less about the ME war...just wants attention/approval; of her/he connection to Nucular...end of story! :huh:
     
  8. Gem
    Offline

    Gem BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,080
    Thanks Received:
    782
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +782
    Gabriella:

    The pictures are of crimes committed by US Soliders. I will agree with you on this. I am furious at those involved, their actions endangered US troops and innocent people and they should be punished accordingly.

    However, here's where you are losing me: The US military began investigating these crimes months before the US media decided it was a story. Several of the people involved in these crimes have already been sentenced severely, more are awaiting trial.

    What would releasing more images solve and/or accomplish? We know that there were attrocities committed at Abu Ghraib. We know that prisoners were abused. We can read the reports and read what was done. Why do you feel the need to see more?

    The only outcome I can see of releasing such footage would be to give insurgents and terrorists yet another excuse to ramp up attacks against innocent Iraqis and claim that it was because of Abu Ghraib. Why would this be something you would encourage? It could also encourage more kidnappings and beheadings. Why would this be something you would support? It could also encourage more attacks on British/US/Australian soil. Why would you support doing something that could have this outcome?

    Note please, that I am not saying we should be unaware of what went on at Abu Ghraib. I am, however, stating that there can be no worthwhile outcome from releasing video footage of the abuses at Abu Ghraib. There WOULD be however, increased violence blamed on the video.

    There are some who might be interested in releasing this video so that the attacks WILL increase...lowering US morale even more and leading to even lower support of the war. Is THIS your intention? If so, then you are stating that you would support increased deaths, increased attacks against innocent civilians, if the outcome was one you support...this is a very sticky area to enter into. I do not get the impression that is what you are supporting...so please explain why releasing the video publically would be something that should be done.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. archangel
    Online

    archangel Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
     
  10. Said1
    Offline

    Said1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    12,087
    Thanks Received:
    937
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Somewhere in Ontario
    Ratings:
    +937
    Why anyone would want to see that is beyond me.

    If they were POWs, isn't there something in the Geneva Convention about releasing their pictures?
     

Share This Page