Suppressed Abu Ghraib photos leaked

February 14, 2006 6:59 PM

60 "secret" Abu Ghraib photos have been leaked to the Sydney Morning Herald. (Warning, very NSFW and disturbing.) They are thought to be among those viewed in private by U.S. senators following a May, 2004 hearing and "withheld from the public to protect the integrity of military trials and to avoid further inflaming America's enemies."
posted by Saucy Intruder (193 comments total)

..
posted by tbonicus at 7:05 PM on February 14, 2006

Jesus Christ... There is an awful lot of blood in those photos. Stress positions my ass.
posted by WinnipegDragon at 7:06 PM on February 14, 2006

The Daily Kos has some of the photos [NSFW]. They're disturbing. According to the Sydney Morning Herald:

They include photographs of six corpses, although the circumstances of their deaths are not clear. There are also pictures of what appear to be burns and wounds from shotgun pellets.

Where was Cheney? Maybe they were just "peppered."
posted by kirkaracha at 7:08 PM on February 14, 2006

Karl Rove's week just keeps getting worse and worse.
posted by yhbc at 7:09 PM on February 14, 2006

This sort of thing goes on in fraternity houses every day. You LIEbrals just can't stand to see our boys let off a little steam.
posted by 2sheets at 7:10 PM on February 14, 2006

I only got as far as photo #7.

what is wrong with our country?
posted by mcsweetie at 7:10 PM on February 14, 2006

kirk, that's the first thing I saw of when I saw those red holes in that guy's backside.

And imagine, our entire government, both Republicans and Democrats, wanted to protect us from those pictures. Amazing.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 7:13 PM on February 14, 2006

These are truly awful.
posted by awesomebrad at 7:13 PM on February 14, 2006

Sickening.

I can't even imagine what it takes to inflict pain and torture on another person like that, when the combat is over and you're back in the prison, after the adrenaline has mostly worn off and your actions can't be blamed as being "in the heat of the moment."
posted by Meredith at 7:17 PM on February 14, 2006

Some of them are obviously disturbing and sadistic. Some of them look like they could be legitimate though, cataloguing of injuries, prisoners, incidents and so on.
posted by loquax at 7:18 PM on February 14, 2006

Sad.
posted by thirteenkiller at 7:18 PM on February 14, 2006

Yeah - Team America! Things look rosy in the march to freedom!
posted by ericb at 7:22 PM on February 14, 2006

I don't see what the gov't gained by drawing this out. Most of them are obviously from the same set that was originally released. I'm curious to see what the effect will be.
posted by furtive at 7:23 PM on February 14, 2006

Wow that made me thoroughly ashamed of my country.
posted by fenriq at 7:23 PM on February 14, 2006

1, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 15 stand out to me as being obviously wrong without any explanation. The rest could have logical explanations as to why they were taken. Are all the photos from the same camera? Taken by the same person? Who is the soldier in the photos? Was he previously implicated in the abuses?
posted by loquax at 7:24 PM on February 14, 2006

Karl Rove's week just keeps getting worse and worse.

As did Scott McClellan's. Heck -- after his keeping silent about Whittington's heart attack at today's press briefing and now this -- tomorrow's press briefing should be quite interesting.
posted by ericb at 7:24 PM on February 14, 2006

Also don't miss the Miss America of Dog Shows.
posted by thirteenkiller at 7:25 PM on February 14, 2006

And imagine, our entire government, both Republicans and Democrats, wanted to protect us from those pictures. Amazing.

Well, it happened on their watch. Of course they didn't want us to know.
posted by graventy at 7:25 PM on February 14, 2006

Oh my god. I should never have to feel this way about the country I live in.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 7:27 PM on February 14, 2006

.

I wonder if these assholes have any idea of what they have done to the diginity of Iraqis?

I am not a nationalist, but if someone did this to American soldiers, I don't think I could forgive them. I'd try, but the depth of depravity is just incomprehensible.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 7:30 PM on February 14, 2006

Some of these are really awful [1, 10, 11, 15] , some i don't understand [2], but most look like the result of conflict. Is it possible that some of these injuries are the result of the prisoners capture? In one picture [6] it looks to me like the soldiers are trying to stitch the guy up. (though, i'll be the first to admit, they also could be playing 'home surgery' in which case, file this photo with those in the awful category)

i am in no way defending anyone who uses torture, [my previous stance] but i'd like to see a bit of context to some of these photos.

For the ones that are clearly torture, fuck em. Find who's in charge and try the bastard for war crimes.
posted by quin at 7:32 PM on February 14, 2006

Forget about cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed inflaming riots.

There's the video of British forces beating Iraqi youths and now these photos.

Hold on, it's going to be a bumpy ride...and one which "yet-to-be-captured" Osama bin Laden couldn't be happier about.
posted by ericb at 7:33 PM on February 14, 2006

.
.
.
posted by trip and a half at 7:35 PM on February 14, 2006

Sorry, this is a better [previous stance].
posted by quin at 7:36 PM on February 14, 2006

Thank goodness they censored the naked bits.
posted by jsonic at 7:37 PM on February 14, 2006

If this doesn't turn the tide in your country, I can't imagine anything that will.
posted by slatternus at 7:38 PM on February 14, 2006

Hellow, WWIII. Jesus Christ. Just when you think things can't get worse...
posted by brundlefly at 7:40 PM on February 14, 2006

Does Abu Ghraib have a medical facility? A prisoner who is captured with a gaping neck wound somewhere in Iraq isn't exactly going to be airlifted to AG. These prisoner transfers take time. Maybe a fellow prisoner attacked #6, who knows. But given the depravity of AG that's not exactly the conclusion I'm inclined to start out with.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 7:40 PM on February 14, 2006

You really think this is "worse", in some way, than the previous photos? Sure there are more photos, but they're from the same incidents.
posted by smackfu at 7:41 PM on February 14, 2006

Who is the soldier in the photos? Was he previously implicated in the abuses?

The asshole with the mustache and the dorky glasses looks like one of the people sentenced earlier. However, I want confirmation of this. Such a sadist is a danger where ever he is.

ericb is right. These monsters have done more for bin Laden than he could ever do for himself.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 7:41 PM on February 14, 2006

Who is the soldier in the photos? Was he previously implicated in the abuses?
That's Charles Graner, father of Lynndie England's child, currently serving 10 years for his involvement in Abu Ghraib.
posted by nikzhowz at 7:44 PM on February 14, 2006

sick, sick stuff
posted by minkll at 7:46 PM on February 14, 2006

Pardon me for not being shocked. Disgusted, yes, discouraged too, but I'm inclined to agree with smackfu that this is just more of what we've come to expect from this occupation.
posted by pieisexactlythree at 7:47 PM on February 14, 2006

It is highly compelling that within the space of weeks, we are looking at the the issue of free speech (vis-a-vis the free release of media) from a couple of different vantage points (freedom to release culturally inflammatory cartoons, freedom to release politcally inflammatory photos).

I'm not sure such a comparison will necessarily be highlighted in the mainstream, but I think a collective analysis is a good place to launch into further debate on free speech, considering the moral ambiguity that each incident has become entrenched in on its own.

For example, I wonder if the same people who condemn the release of the British soldier footage (mentioned previously, perhaps in a another post) would be the same people to condemn publication of the cartoon, or vice-versa.

I think such an analysis could shed greater light into those who geniunely believe in free speech and those who merely flaunt it in favor of their own geopolitical persuasions.
posted by ginbiafra at 7:47 PM on February 14, 2006

smackfu: burns and wounds from shotgun pellets are no worse than pictures of sexual humilation?
posted by brundlefly at 7:48 PM on February 14, 2006

"And imagine, our entire government, both Republicans and Democrats, wanted to protect us from those pictures. Amazing."

The amazing thing is that these pictures are actually some of the less inflammatory footage that hasn't been released, based on what we know.

(A woman being sexually assaulted, a boy being forceably sodomized, etc.)

By all accounts, the video footage that the ACLU is trying to get released is much worse than this stuff.
posted by insomnia_lj at 7:48 PM on February 14, 2006

Losing the war in Iraq is sort of like Baby Face Nelson losing a bank robbery.
posted by warbaby at 7:49 PM on February 14, 2006

Thanks, nikzhowz. Good to know he's behind bars, if not for long enough.
posted by loquax at 7:51 PM on February 14, 2006

My question is, why did the SBS release only 15 photos out of 60? Are they holding back something for the show, or are the other photos not particularly noteworthy? What kind of photos didn't they release?
posted by insomnia_lj at 7:51 PM on February 14, 2006

I don't see what the gov't gained by drawing this out. Most of them are obviously from the same set that was originally released. I'm curious to see what the effect will be.

It seems they are trying like a MF to go to war with the whole middle east. It is like watching some kind of sick ballet.
posted by Mr_Zero at 7:52 PM on February 14, 2006

Did any one else notice that the soldiers had failed to correctly spell the word rapist on the hip of the fellow in the lower left corner of picture 11? Not only are they sick individuals they also don't spell too good.
At least there is a bit of a laugh somewhere in these.
posted by Restlessavenger at 7:52 PM on February 14, 2006

I don't see what the gov't gained by drawing this out. Most of them are obviously from the same set that was originally released. I'm curious to see what the effect will be.

Oh, and we're not talking about Cheney blasting anyone now are we.
posted by Mr_Zero at 7:53 PM on February 14, 2006

As I look at these pictures I can't help thinking that this is how people act who've already lost, and know it in their hearts. Not just in Iraq, but everywhere, in every way.
posted by slatternus at 7:54 PM on February 14, 2006

slatternus -

If this doesn't turn the tide in your country, I can't imagine anything that will.

Your optimism is adorable. Of course it won't - as smackfu points out, this is really no worse than the last series. Or the storry about "Timmy". This is what Americans want - for us to get "tough on terrorism". I supect the Administration leaked the photos to distract from the Cheney shooting and shore up Bush's sagging approval numbers.
posted by bonecrusher at 7:58 PM on February 14, 2006

some i don't understand [2]

My guess is that the box is heavy and the prisoner is forced to hold it without dropping it, otherwise he will be punished. Of course, the drop is inevitable, but the punishment isn't guaranteed, as the physical and psychological stress leading up to the prisoner dropping the box could be punishment enough. But judging from the other pictures I'd say the poor guy still got his ass kicked after.

These sorts of things are well ingrained in the minds of soldiers. When I was a recruit we used to have to submit to similar situations, holding our rifle out at arms length for extended periods of time or adopting the thinking position*, except that this would happen to us as a group (e.g. at the platoon level) and when someone failed it was the group that was punished, and we sure as hell never had sandbags over our heads. Ever since Somalia the Canadians learned their lesson. Something tells me it may be too late for the US to learn theirs.

* The thinking position required you to balance on one leg, with the other leg crossed over, then to hunch so that your elbow was on your knee and your chin supported by the palm of your hand. Then you had to maintain that balanced position as you thought about how stupid what ever you just did was. Fall over too soon and pushups plus more thinking would ensue.
posted by furtive at 8:00 PM on February 14, 2006

Karl Rove's week just keeps getting worse and worse.

I dunno -- we're not talking about illegal wiretaps anymore. And, as far as the Bush Administration is concerned, this is all water under the bridge that's already been attributed to a few bad apples.

/ I had the same thought about QuailGate.
// Sounding paranoid, even to myself, but at this point I wouldn't put it past 'em.
posted by LordSludge at 8:01 PM on February 14, 2006

quin writes "In one picture [6] it looks to me like the soldiers are trying to stitch the guy up. (though, i'll be the first to admit, they also could be playing 'home surgery' in which case, file this photo with those in the awful category)"


If they were providing medical care it a) wouldn't be Grainer doing it, and b) the prisoner would be in on a stretcher or a bed.

My guess: that's a corpse, and Grainer is extracting the gold fillings to make a little cash.
posted by orthogonality at 8:01 PM on February 14, 2006

"I don't see what the gov't gained by drawing this out."

I suspect it has to do primarily with the public's POV of what happened at Abu Ghraib at the time the pictures were first released..

When the first pictures hit, rightwing commentators talked about "hazing" and about how what happened was an isolated incident. Compare that to the sum total of what all the pictures and video would say, though. Namely, that numerous prisoners had died, apparently after torture and abuse, that it was a much more widespread problem than initially mentioned, and that it involved some pretty horrific sexual abuse too.

Nowadays, sadly, no reasonable American would deny that we've tortured people to death. We take that fact for granted today. What we haven't been forced to deal with is the moving pictures showing exactly what kind of horrors we inflicted on those people. When that comes out, it would make the latest British video look tame.
posted by insomnia_lj at 8:05 PM on February 14, 2006

All I can say, is thank God for the free press. I'll really miss it.

More shocking to me than the photos are the attitudes of many Americans who consider exposing this depravity unpatriotic. I've heard so many lament that these photos were ever made public.

I am glad these photos are coming to light now. The US administration is trying to convince us that they can be trusted to investigate without warrents, to imprisinon without due process. I can't believe this bastard only got 10 years.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 8:06 PM on February 14, 2006

This is the reality of war. It happens in every war, it's been a lot worse. It's war. It's fucked up, and it shouldn't ever happen. This is what happens when wealthy people make poor people fight each other over territories, "spirituality," and mad loot.

People didn't react this strongly to the images that got the stamp of approval to be published during "Shock and Awe," where the deaths of innocent families were represented by faint flickers of light against the silhouette of downtown Baghdad. How come? What makes a dog biting one man's dick worse than an entire apartment building in flames in the distance? Any imagery where you see somebody losing their battle against the grave in a violent manner for frivilous motives is offensive in my little book.

I think people are just evolved enough to know this kind of behavior is wrong but not evolved enough to be able to ignore the insatiable desire to hurt other people for self-righteous reasons. My only hope is our species can make it a few hundred more years to be able to recognize our collective immaturity.
posted by wigu at 8:09 PM on February 14, 2006

Feel the global love.
posted by ook at 8:13 PM on February 14, 2006

Those photos seriously pissed me the fuck off and I'm American and they're very hard to stomach. What do you think my reaction would be if if I was an Iraqi and hated America? Or if I was just a fence-sitter on the issue of America?

When do we leave? Seriously, we haven't won the war of "winning hearts and minds" and it's pretty evident that we never will, especially with those photos floating around and the footage posted yesterday of British soldiers beating teenagers. I think it's time for the Iraqis to control their future, if it spirals out of control, so be it, we're going to leave Iraq fucked one way or another, rather sooner than later. From what I keep hearing from interviews with Iraqi citizens, is that the biggest reason for the insurgency is the fact that America is there at all and Iraq would most likely be a more peaceful without us there. The insurgency is united against the U.S. and coalition forces, I imagine that the Iraqi people are sick of shit randomly blowing up, U.S. raiding homes (or bombing them), and I'm sure they'll be happy when they're not randomly shot at by white guys while driving down the road. /rant
posted by Mijo Bijo at 8:13 PM on February 14, 2006

quin asks good questions, though.
although, with the general theme of the photographs taken, even the innocent-looking shots imply a certain level of ill will. i wish we could see the order/in-between shots of these, instead of a scrape of the most offensive.
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 8:14 PM on February 14, 2006

insomnia_lj: From the article:

Tonight the SBS Dateline program plans to broadcast about 60 previously unpublished photographs that the US Government has been fighting to keep secret in a court case with the American Civil Liberties Union.

They have just released a teaser to get Australian audiences to watch tonight. Then don't worry, those photos will be everywhere.

How did the land that stood for Democracy and the rule of law wind up like this?
posted by sien at 8:20 PM on February 14, 2006

Jesus. ugh. ..... I can't think of what to say.
posted by blacklite at 8:22 PM on February 14, 2006

This is certainly why you release photos like these when the public and media demands their release, rather than waiting for them to leak months later in the midst of ongoing riots sparked by cartoons.

This is an excellent demonstration that any PR success credited to the Bush administration is a symptom of its utter corrpution, rather than a strategy unto itself.
posted by VulcanMike at 8:23 PM on February 14, 2006

some i don't understand [2]

I have a good idea what this is about. When my father "turned Chief" he was subject to a rather cruel form of hazing, where he was made to stand barefoot on a cinder block. Before him was a sheet with broken glass. He was blindfolded and forced to hold another cinder block that was tied around his neck with twine. So thinking that if he fell off he would cut his bare feet on the glass. However, while he was blindfolded the sheet (that originally was covered in broken glass) was removed and replaced with sharply broken ice. Eventually when they felt he was tired enough they cut the twine....and down he went dancing across the ice. Much to their amusement.

I think this image is a sick twisted version of this. Putting two and two together with the image of the prisoner with the mock electrical wires...I imagine that this prisoner was instructed that the box contained explosives and that if he dropped it he would be blown to pieces.

Just my individual take on it...
posted by SweetIceT at 8:23 PM on February 14, 2006

Part of me is almost glad these pictures exist. They constitute some of the strongest evidence possible against the whole malicious doctrine of pre-emptive war. The next time people seriously begin to believe that conquering another sovereign country that poses no threat to anybody is a good idea these pictures will be there to shock some sense into them.
posted by nixerman at 8:24 PM on February 14, 2006

i'm getting paranoid ... muslims all over the world are already rioting and demonstrating over those cartoons ... yesterday, the video gets leaked ... today, these pictures ...

nothing like thowing gasoline on a fire, is there? ... is this just the breaks? ... or is someone in our government deliberately leaking this shit to inflame the situation?
posted by pyramid termite at 8:26 PM on February 14, 2006

First this week, the video of those Brit soldiers beating those kids and the sound of the videographer growling in delight, and now these photos ... I suppose this is what liberation looks like. Is anyone else having a problem still believing that these are isolated incidents? I shudder to think how much of this goes on among those soldiers who are smart enough not to photograph or film it for posterity ...
posted by bcveen at 8:26 PM on February 14, 2006

isn't it weird that now that the media is wholly and completely distracted that they're released?
posted by amberglow at 8:27 PM on February 14, 2006

We are going to be paying for this in blood for decades, if not centuries.
posted by digaman at 8:28 PM on February 14, 2006

i'm getting paranoid ... nothing like thowing gasoline on a fire, is there? ... is this just the breaks? ...

They don't call it "terrorism" for nothing!
posted by wigu at 8:32 PM on February 14, 2006

Does Abu Ghraib have a medical facility?

Abu Ghraib is our primary medical facility in the Baghdad area. One of my best friends, an ER doctor and a major in the Army Reserves, got back in December from four months there. It's exactly where injured Iraqis are taken.
posted by nicwolff at 8:33 PM on February 14, 2006

As much as I hate cliches...

They are thought to be among those viewed in private by U.S. senators following a May, 2004 hearing and "withheld from the public to protect the integrity of military trials and to avoid further inflaming America's enemies creating more enemies of the U.S."

Fixed it for ya.

It's an important distinction. We're not fighting a country with a fixed set of people; we're fighting an ideology that gains strength (and credibility) with every member we kill/torture.

Oh, looky, now Iran is stepping up to the plate. Golly, didn't see that coming...
posted by LordSludge at 8:34 PM on February 14, 2006

I can't believe this bastard only got 10 years.

I can't believe the bastards responsible for allowing -- or ordering -- that bastard to do what he's doing aren't serving any time at all. Place looks like Colonel Kurz is running things.

Abu Ghraib is where we lost the war in Iraq. And it's where we guaranteed the war on terrorism will last for the foreseeable future. Mission accomplished.
posted by ook at 8:35 PM on February 14, 2006

thirteenkiller: Also don't miss the Miss America of Dog Shows.

Nope, the distraction's gotta be bigger than that. Last time, they got Brad & Jen to break up, and the usual Jackson Family Parade o'Weirdness. It's a pretty safe bet to say Jacko's gonna do something pretty astounding (even for him). I'm thinking that Pat Robertson's prolly gonna go public about his relationship with Rob Halford, or some loony celebrity breakup.

And Oprah will break the news.
posted by swell at 8:46 PM on February 14, 2006

We are going to be paying for this in blood for decades, if not centuries.

America ain't gonna be around for centuries. And, if it has its way, either will anybody else.
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 8:56 PM on February 14, 2006

Digaman, normally I would agree with you...

But it is actions such as these that guarantee that modern man does not have the luxury of "centuries"...

We have already run out of time.

Few choose to see, most never will.

For all that came before, and all that should have been...

All. Is. Lost.
posted by PROD_TPSL at 8:57 PM on February 14, 2006

As of this writing, no mention of this on CNN. Any major American news sources addressing this yet?
posted by Joey Michaels at 9:00 PM on February 14, 2006

Last time, they got Brad & Jen to break up...

swell nails it.
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 9:02 PM on February 14, 2006

swell, you mean like TomKat breaking up? Would another run on that freakshow be a good enough distraction?
posted by fenriq at 9:03 PM on February 14, 2006

What is it now? >Two years?

Meh.
posted by Atreides at 9:07 PM on February 14, 2006

As of this writing, no mention of this on CNN. Any major American news sources addressing this yet?

Give it time; give it time. Check Google News 24 hours from now for an accurate count of USAian references!
posted by ericb at 9:13 PM on February 14, 2006

The Bush legacy of legalized abuse and why the McCain ban won't work
posted by homunculus at 9:15 PM on February 14, 2006

CIA leak investigation; Rove not yet cleared.

On-going congressional investigation into the debacle of Katrina.

Jack Abramoff and his (and other lobbyists') influence with the current administration.

Lowest Approval Poll Numbers for Bush

Poor communication regarding an executive officer's actions and lack of subsequent communication to the American public.

Competent? Moral? Ethical? Legal? You decide.
posted by ericb at 9:23 PM on February 14, 2006

Oh yeah -- I forget the warrantless domestic spying!
posted by ericb at 9:25 PM on February 14, 2006

Hey, cool!

My flatmate's one of the video editors on Dateline! :)

(Why was I not told about this?)
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:25 PM on February 14, 2006

ericb, didn't you get the memo from Chinless Joe Lieberman? We must support the president in time of war! No nit-picking until we are all wallowing in the spoils of victory.

The argument is strong and getting stronger to remove the entire administration. But we've gotta get some control back in the elections.
posted by fenriq at 9:28 PM on February 14, 2006

"Leaked" ?
posted by troutfishing at 9:34 PM on February 14, 2006

this should be tomorrow's front page images, but won't be. it's beyond pathetic.

maybe if Cheney himself had done the torturing?
posted by amberglow at 9:39 PM on February 14, 2006

The Bush administration claims the U.S. intends to leave Iraq. But its massive military "super-bases" tell a different story.
posted by homunculus at 9:44 PM on February 14, 2006

so, I'm not alone in thinking that the release of these AFTER Bush won his second election is a little too convenient, right?
posted by shmegegge at 10:01 PM on February 14, 2006

What gets me about these pics is how insane anyone would have seemed, if they had claimed that this stuff was going on in the absence of these pictures that someone was stupid enough to take.

If I'd earlier heard accusations of such weird tortures, and heard Rumsfeld laughingly dismiss them, I probably would have believed Rumsfeld. (Rumsfeld!)

The military's first response to these pictures was to ban the use of cameras in prisons. What's happening to prisoners of the US now? What now would really be crazy to believe? It freaks me out.
posted by washburn at 10:36 PM on February 14, 2006

I still feel as though we haven't seen the worst of these photos. Wasn't there a child rape one?
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:51 PM on February 14, 2006

...failed to correctly spell the word rapist

I'd actually decided they were trying to spell the word "Papist."

I suspect I give too much credit to the intellect of the perps.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:17 PM on February 14, 2006

"i'm getting paranoid ... muslims all over the world are already rioting and demonstrating over those cartoons ... yesterday, the video gets leaked ... today, these pictures ..."

I know several soldiers who have mentioned that they were passed along some pretty sick, repulsive stuff while back in Iraq. I didn't ask whether they kept it, or whether they'd share it with me, because that's not what friends do. Most of them really don't want to talk about that shit, and certainly don't want that kind of trouble... except when they do. And when they do, it's usually after they're really had time to reflect on things and face the least personal consequences.

So, why are we seeing all of this stuff now? The answer to me seems kind of obvious. Practically every source for every controversial photo or video from Iraq appears to have been from the soldiers themselves. Many of them *DO* want to share what they know with others, but they don't want to get in trouble, either from the military or from their fellow soldiers. They want their truths known, but they cannot afford to do it until after they've been released from duty. It's a lot harder to get released from duty lately, though. Three and four year enlistments are becoming five, six, or seven year enlistments, routinely, especially when the choice is to reenlist or get immediately transfered to another unit that's probably on its way back to a war zone in a few months, at which point they get sent over and stop lossed for several extra months.

So the question perhaps isn't "why now?", but rather "why did it take so long?"
posted by insomnia_lj at 11:26 PM on February 14, 2006

Abu Ghraib is where we lost the war in Iraq.

If anybody wonders about my own change in position ...

It is highly compelling that within the space of weeks, we are looking at the the issue of free speech (vis-a-vis the free release of media) from a couple of different vantage points (freedom to release culturally inflammatory cartoons, freedom to release politcally inflammatory photos).

Indeed. I can't wait for Malkin to start a BOYCOTT STRINE campaign.
posted by dhartung at 11:54 PM on February 14, 2006

If these pictures add anything whatsoever to your understanding or impressions of war, then this only proves you are extremely naive and delusional. How is this any worse than the brains of five year old son being splattered all over the dress of his mother by a stray bullet or missile? Instead of getting blown away, at least most of these guys in these pictures got out alive.

War is ugly. People do terrible stuff to each other. Uh huh. Got it. Thanks.
posted by DirtyCreature at 12:04 AM on February 15, 2006

but we're the good guys. right?
posted by Miles Long at 12:06 AM on February 15, 2006

If these pictures add anything whatsoever to your understanding or impressions of war, then this only proves you are extremely naive and delusional ...
War is ugly. People do terrible stuff to each other. Uh huh. Got it. Thanks.

I think you're grossly misinterpreting the actual issue here, DirtyCreature. While your blase reaction is probably quite common, the issue is not that war is terrible. It's that this war, which initially was about eradicating Iraqi WMD, but which is now clearly about liberating the country based on America's moral highground, is actually conducted in quite an immoral way.

Logically, the only resolution that (morally) venerates the US in the light of this is the postulation that the moral reasons to liberate Iraq supercede any effect of collateral damages such as torture being conducted by disparate members of the 'liberating force'. Besides that, I don't see any moral reason, and America must agree that this invasion was a move based on power (including economic) struggle.

These pictures are not emotional pieces to draw sympathy for those tortured (as your comment would imply), but evidence of inconsistency that casts a dubious light upon America's moral high ground.
posted by ginbiafra at 12:46 AM on February 15, 2006

inconsistency that casts a dubious light upon America's moral high ground.

That's putting it awfully mildly.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:49 AM on February 15, 2006

Do people really doubt that the country of Jeffry Dahmer, Columbine, Gacy, "BTK", Ted Bundy, ad nauseum isn't capable of depravity? And that to fund these foreign adventures with no tangible reward for the population, that they might have dig a little deep into the recruiting pool? And that, when you combine that with Nationalism after 9/11 (they covered the Saddam statue with a flag from Ground Zero) that you might be able to incite racist and inhuman actions from soldiers? And that some asshole in the CIA might not seize on that behavior and try to use it as a humiliation tactic, because a book he read told him that would work against them?
posted by chaz at 12:52 AM on February 15, 2006

It's that this war, which initially was about eradicating Iraqi WMD, but which is now clearly about liberating the country based on America's moral highground, is actually conducted in quite an immoral way.

What is moral about blowing away the children of innocent people just going about their everyday lives? Because it's better to kill 100,000 innocent people than have an oppressive regime who might develop WMD?

Which is more "moral"? Killing the guys in the pictures who were probably planning an insurgency or capturing them, torturing them a bit for information and then letting them live?

You can't sell war with morality. It's just silly. Stop deluding yourselves. It's the same old story every war - some emotive pictures or news story wakes up the moms and dads of America and they feel if they can expunge this small evil, they are morally free again.

Look I am not even taking a stand on whether war was a good idea or not. It's this silly moral hypocrisy and game the public plays with themselves. Surely they have learnt this by now.
posted by DirtyCreature at 12:54 AM on February 15, 2006

Which is more "moral"? Killing the guys in the pictures who were probably planning an insurgency or capturing them, torturing them a bit for information and then letting them live?

Probably planning
posted by srboisvert at 1:21 AM on February 15, 2006

Because it's better to kill 100,000 innocent people than have an oppressive regime who might develop WMD?

I don't know. You talking about our people or their people? :)

Which is more "moral"? Killing the guys in the pictures who were probably planning an insurgency or capturing them, torturing them a bit for information and then letting them live?

Ever watched a living man that's done been tortured, hoss? Every see where he goes from there? Ever watch his friends and family after the fact?

You sure it's better to torture and let go? :)

Look I am not even taking a stand on whether war was a good idea or not. It's this silly moral hypocrisy and game the public plays with themselves. Surely they have learnt this by now.


I'm just saying, the public looks to its leaders to tell them the 'right' thing to do. This is easily exploited, and one method of exploitation is to invoke morality.

Evidence such as these photographs challenges the foundations of such exploitation.
posted by ginbiafra at 1:25 AM on February 15, 2006

Probably planning

Torturing "innocent" people is "evil".
Torturing "guilty" people is "evil".
Killing "guilty" people is "evil" with intent to kill is "evil".
Killing "guilty" people is "evil" without intent to kill is "evil".
Killing "innocent" people is "evil" with intent to kill is "evil".
Killing "innocent" people is "evil" without intent to kill is "evil".

All based covered? Nothing contentious here? Good.

A citizenry that votes out a government that they elected and that caused any of the above does not make any of the above moral whether they voted for them or not. It's just one continuing big game of good cop, bad cop played on a national level. We are all responsible.

Now having said all the above, was the war a good idea? Personally, I'm still undecided about that. But I'm not going to pretend war is ever "moral".
posted by DirtyCreature at 1:33 AM on February 15, 2006

Aight dude, I'm just going to say this one more time. In the context of this post, the issue is not whether you believe the war is moral. It is that the was is being fought, and to a large extent supported, by people under the assumption that it is moral.

Now, in the context of this post, the photographs are pieces of data that challenge that claim of morality. As opposed to what you initially said, "ooo photos ... war is bad and shit, ok, got it a-huh".
posted by ginbiafra at 1:42 AM on February 15, 2006

Alright "dude", I'm just going to say this one more time. The issue is not that the photographs are pieces of data that challenge that claim of morality. It is that you think photographs demonstrate to people that war is less moral than when they discovered 100,000 innocent people just like them were killed by the war.

War is bad and shit, ok, got it a-huh.
posted by DirtyCreature at 1:49 AM on February 15, 2006

So ... you're not downplaying the significance of these pictures, are you? :)
posted by ginbiafra at 1:52 AM on February 15, 2006

I still don't get the whole picture, pardon the snark phun.

Let say I show the pictures to the following persons

* Moderate Western, Extremist Western, Moderate M-Eastern, Extremist M-Eastern

What will the probable possible reactions be ?

The moderates will be disgusted, the western one may think things are out of control and that the government has certainly some blame , the m-e one has one more reason to forget the fairy tale americans bring "democracy" while they can't even keep control of their own selves.

The extremist western will probably think the tortured somehow deserved what they got as retaliation for 9/11 and that torture may scare the "enemy". Such idiocy comments itself, but what about the extremist m-eastern ?

I would find another reason to be outraged.

So why were they leaked ? Were they leaked (and if so by who) or intentionally sent to an australian newspaper (maybe out of the usual control channels ? ) to help stir more reaction , create more distraction ?

The greater the insurgency , the easier would be to justify yank and allied presence in Iraq, we can't leave the iraquis dealing with the unholy mess we created, can we ?

Now if only IED were not used against grunts soldiers, who after all puppets in this wargame, but against pipelines and economic target..it would be harder to justify presence, after all Iraquis can police fixed targets and have an interest in doing so.

Mhh..never mind bombing a pipeline in Pakistan in already part of war on Terror. Pakistan ?
posted by elpapacito at 2:03 AM on February 15, 2006

What a way to start my day, cup of coffee and pics of torture.

Fuck I'm so lucky to be part of the privileged few on this planet. What has happened to these people is barbaric, twisted and shows humans at their worst. we really are no more than animals.

I can't blame anyone who takes up arms against us after going through shit like this. We are not the good guys, never have been. At best we are as brainwashed as the "bad guys" into believing this is in any way a justified war.

This big fucking mess is pretty much proof that you just have to let people sort out their own messes. i used to think a just world would involve toppling evil dictators... anyone in power has aspirations to being a dictator, so fuck them all.

It's all pretty scary because I think people on both sides are trying their best to bring this "clash of civilisations" to a head. Very convenient that Bush and Blair aren't well loved by their electorate, this cartoon caper has gone on too long, the footage of the British troops were released and now this. The average person will begin hating the Arab, (if they don't already) and eternal war will be so much easier.

It's going to happen soon and it won't be pretty. People like us on the blue will be seen as traitors, infidels, whatever. It's going to happen soon and God/Allah/Jesus won't be around to help anyone.
posted by twistedonion at 2:09 AM on February 15, 2006

Karl Rove's week just keeps getting worse and worse.

I don't agree. he may have a headache for the Cheney thing, but unless the lawyer dies (or we discover that Cheney shot him on purpose) this will be forgotten very soon. Abu Ghraib? as Bush memorably pointed out, there was a moment of accountability, in November 2004. and the American people -- according to Diebold, of course -- told the world that they don't really care about Abu Ghraib.


Bush won in '04, after the Abu Ghraib scandal. end of the story. these pictures don't really add anything -- the US tortures inmates. not news at all. and, the man who ordered the torture wasn't voted out of office.
posted by matteo at 2:14 AM on February 15, 2006

So ... you're not downplaying the significance of these pictures, are you? :)

From a political impact perspective? No. My point was about how ridiculous it was that it will.
posted by DirtyCreature at 2:16 AM on February 15, 2006

Wow, I've heard of some apathy. But that just takes the cake :) Let's see. We're now at the point where you are feeling bad that examples of human abuse discolor the publics' perception of ... what exactly?
posted by ginbiafra at 2:35 AM on February 15, 2006

matteo: Bush won in '04, after the Abu Ghraib scandal. end of the story. these pictures don't really add anything

Empirically, in terms of photo data I agree the pictures don't add anything 'new'.

I agree with you that the American consensus certainly implies that people at the time didn't really care.

Perhaps that is still the fact, but I diasagree that the pictures won't add anything. To say such a thing would also be, for example, to invalidate continued sustanence of, erm, 'symbolic demonstration'. Things don't have to be new to initiate new impact.

Someone above was critical of why these pictures have been released now. I won't disagree the potential for misdirection, but on the other hand, it could also be redirection. But that's just my opinion.
posted by ginbiafra at 3:09 AM on February 15, 2006

[a few comments removed. leave the "where is dios/whoever?" stuff alone please.]
posted by jessamyn at 4:47 AM on February 15, 2006

I wonder how things will go when the sodomy of children videos finally get out.
posted by srboisvert at 4:52 AM on February 15, 2006

For every one of you who is American (including myself), these atrocities ARE BRING DONE IN OUR NAMES.

WE are to blame for this shit. WE will pay the price. For those of you with children, their lives will be made much more difficult, their safety and security completely compromised, shattered.

What are you going to do about this, right this moment? Will you call your congressperson and tell them that this is NOT ACCEPTABLE, that you are horrified and want our troops out of Iraq immediately?

Will you demand a formal investigation into the Bush administration and why it waged this immoral war?
posted by dbiedny at 5:43 AM on February 15, 2006

"being done", sorry, I'm hopping mad.

And yes, srboisvert, I've heard about those sodomy videos. Can you imagine how WE would feel if someone did that to American children? IN FRONT OF THEIR MOTHERS? Unfuckingreal.
posted by dbiedny at 5:45 AM on February 15, 2006

srboisvert : "I wonder how things will go when the sodomy of children videos finally get out."

Actually I don't think it is even legal to publish pictures/videos of minors being forced to have sex in any country - and I think I have seem enough sick hardcore pornography (British video, sniper video, this photos) in the last days for a as long as I would care (not that I have any hope it won't keep coming). Also, what would be gained by publishing those videos? As noticed above, we've already learned the majority of the American public thinks it is acceptable to torture the enemy, since they re-elected the man who all but ordered the torture. Do we really want to ask the same public if sodomizing the enemy's children is acceptable too?

One thing to realize here is that this behavior by the Western forces not only justifies the same behavior (or whatever they may devise, like public beheadings) from the current enemy - it back-justifies things like the Hanoi Hilton: if it is correct for the Americans to torture enemies for information or just for the fun of it, why wouldn't it be correct for the North Vietnamese to do the same?
posted by nkyad at 5:46 AM on February 15, 2006

Do we really want to ask the same public if sodomizing the enemy's children is acceptable too?

What's the other solution - bury the news? Keep the masses from learning what is being done in the name of liberation and freedom?
posted by twistedonion at 6:09 AM on February 15, 2006

So, scanning the major news websites this morning (NYTimes, LA Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, BBC) I see that only one thinks this merits a headline (BBC), two others give it a bullet point (CNN, MSNBC), and to the rest it might as well have never happened.

Now what were saying about this changing opinion on the war? Oh look: Brangelina!
posted by fungible at 6:23 AM on February 15, 2006

Sky News has it fungible - that's essentially FOX in the UK.
posted by longbaugh at 6:27 AM on February 15, 2006

"ask the same public if sodomizing?"...


Ask? No, it's time to TELL the American public that teenage boys are being sodomized in front of their mothers, for sport - there is no "crucial intel" being derived from these atrocities. If the masses in the US don't care about any of this, as some posters have suggested, then we're fucked for real, and the world will smirk when the inevitable retaliation happens.

Again, I ask the question, those of you who are US citizens, when will you call your congressperson, when will you call the Whitehouse and demand an explanation? Does justice mean anything to you anymore? Do you have children? Are you willing to do something about the price they will have to pay for this disaster?
posted by dbiedny at 6:27 AM on February 15, 2006

longbaugh: Yes. UK = 2. US = a collective "meh". Surprise, surprise.
posted by fungible at 6:33 AM on February 15, 2006

I wonder how things will go when the sodomy of children videos finally get out.

See, these pictures are so not news that you're already talking up the next scandal.
posted by smackfu at 6:36 AM on February 15, 2006

Part of me is almost glad these pictures exist. They constitute some of the strongest evidence possible against the whole malicious doctrine of pre-emptive war. The next time people seriously begin to believe that conquering another sovereign country that poses no threat to anybody is a good idea these pictures will be there to shock some sense into them.

I don't really see the connection between these (or any of the Abu Ghraib photos), and whether there is justification for a pre-emptive strike. If the US was attacked first, and the enemy forces "deserved it", does that mean the treatment would have been acceptable? Not that I thought you were implying that necessarily, it just seems like 2 different issues.
posted by stifford at 6:45 AM on February 15, 2006

But it's all okay. 9-11 and all that...

Right? Our president says it is...

Right? Hello? Right?
posted by damnitkage at 6:49 AM on February 15, 2006

Sky News has it fungible - that's essentially FOX in the UK.

Not really teu. Murdoch only owns 49% (or 51%) of Sky and Sky News is a fairly boring apolitical news channel. I'm not a huge fan of it but it's still orders of magnitude more fact led than any of the US channels.
posted by cillit bang at 6:52 AM on February 15, 2006

So, scanning the major news websites this morning (NYTimes, LA Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, BBC) I see that only one thinks this merits a headline (BBC),

It's the lead story at MSNBC right now.

Since the story broke last night (U.S. time) (and yesterday morning in Australia) it likely missed the evening news/printing cycle of most U.S. papers.

I suspect we'll see it covered this morning and afternoon on U.S. news websites and on the front pages tomorrow.
posted by ericb at 6:54 AM on February 15, 2006

DirtyCreature: It's the same old story every war - some emotive pictures or news story wakes up the moms and dads of America and they feel if they can expunge this small evil, they are morally free again.

It's probably important to note, since you're evoking the historial aspects of this sort of news, that emotive pictures and news stories helped the moms and dads of America expunge the Vietnam war altogether not too long ago. I keep waiting for something to bring 21st century Americans to this same tipping point -- I must admit that a lot of my faith in our future hinges on it.

dbiedny gets down to the core of why we should be so concerned. This is in our name... justifications for war aside, this is our government, our military, our country and our future in the world. We elected the government, and they represent us...
posted by VulcanMike at 6:57 AM on February 15, 2006

CNN has posted its story 22 minutes ago at 9:32 a.m. EST. With the story breaking last night while reporters were likely asleep, they are just now gathering the info, fact-checking and writing their news stories. Do a Google News search (currently at 146] this afternoon and you'll see how rapidly this will spread throughout the U.S. and World media.
posted by ericb at 7:00 AM on February 15, 2006

So you can show a man being tortured, but youc can't show his peener.
posted by delmoi at 7:03 AM on February 15, 2006

Jesus condones torture, not peeners.
posted by bardic at 7:18 AM on February 15, 2006

Jesus condones torture, not peeners.

Although you are joking it is an interesting comparison. I doubt he would condone torture considering what he went through at the hands of an imperialist republic.

Saying that, at least Jesus had the dignity of a loin cloth when he was tortured by the imperial forces.
posted by twistedonion at 7:28 AM on February 15, 2006

Most disturbing is the expression of that guard.
posted by Mitheral at 7:40 AM on February 15, 2006

Saying that, at least Jesus had the dignity of a loin cloth when he was tortured by the imperial forces.

Maybe that got added in later, after the Church took a strong "anti-peener" stance. The guards might have been pointing as his pecker and laughing, just no polaroids to show as evidence. ; )
posted by stifford at 7:44 AM on February 15, 2006

"We do not torture."

-GW Bush, November 7, 2005, Panama City, speaking to reporters

Washington Post
posted by rmmcclay at 7:47 AM on February 15, 2006

Dozens more Abu Ghraib abuse images broadcast.
posted by stinkycheese at 7:55 AM on February 15, 2006

I'll go even further out on a limb to defend the Roman practice of crucifixion--it was public and took a fair amount of time, in order to make a ugly, large, public point about not fucking with the Imperium.

These photos? Not so much. Banal cruelty, fratboy psychology. These people are the worst of the worst, and BTW, where the fuck are their officers? The US military still has them, I assume, or has Rumsfeld managed to outsource them as well?

Radical Muslim fuckwits will gain from this. They have every right to.
posted by bardic at 7:58 AM on February 15, 2006

These people are the worst of the worst

Not to excuse any of these actions, but "worst of the worst"? The bar of human atrocities can go a lot higher (or lower) than that.

Radical Muslim fuckwits will gain from this. They have every right to.

Do Pro-War conservatives "gain" from beheadings, and have every right to? Seems like an odd point to make, but maybe I misinterpeted it.
posted by stifford at 8:12 AM on February 15, 2006

The transcript of the broadcast has been released, and indicates some rather shocking new scenes, including video footage.

"...This video shows naked men apparently forced to masturbate in front of the soldiers and their camera . . . these two women were arrested for working as prostitutes and were held in Abu Ghraib for 48 hours."
posted by insomnia_lj at 8:32 AM on February 15, 2006

Isohunt lists a bittorrent download for the broadcast, available here.
posted by insomnia_lj at 8:35 AM on February 15, 2006

... and here.
posted by insomnia_lj at 8:38 AM on February 15, 2006

Ah... nevermind. That's an older Dateline episode on Abu Ghraib and the renditions.
posted by insomnia_lj at 8:43 AM on February 15, 2006

America.

Sucks.

More.

Every.

Day.

fuck you if that pisses you off. these pictures should piss you off.
posted by wakko at 8:50 AM on February 15, 2006

I also noticed the "rapeist" misspelling and, like five fresh fish, thought they might have been going after "papist" and ended up getting that wrong as well. On closer inspection, the descending leg of the "R" seems to be visible.

At first, this seems the least offensive aspect of these horrific images. But I find it extremely telling. The individuals committing these crimes, indeed many of the men and women risking their lives in Iraq, are not particularly well educated. I don't mean this in a disparaging way - college is incredibly expensive and impossible for many to manage without incurring significant debt.

It is the responsibility of the armed forces, therefore, to provide substantial training and education to these individuals. Not so that they can be better spellers, obviously, but so they can make better and more informed choices when faced with depravity and brutality. The soldiers responsible for this sort of torture are clearly responsible for their actions, but higher ups in government and the military are just as culpable for failing to provide decent training and leadership.

Every aspect of this makes me ill. I feel for the soldiers just as much as I do for those being tortured.
posted by aladfar at 9:35 AM on February 15, 2006

BBC news now has some of the video footage from Abu Ghraib up on their site.
posted by bcveen at 10:57 AM on February 15, 2006

Oh jesus, just watching BBC news now, guy smashing his own head against a metal door - just how terrified do you have to be to do that to yourself?... I can't even imagine what the consequences must have been if he didn't follow the gaurds orders.

Fucking despicable.
posted by twistedonion at 11:06 AM on February 15, 2006

From Fox's coverage online -

"One clip broadcast by SBS showed a group of naked men with bags over their heads standing together, masturbating. The network said the masturbation had been forced."

Is Fox making jokes about this now?
posted by stinkycheese at 11:38 AM on February 15, 2006

When are the moderate americans going to stand up against this? Why do we never hear from the non-extremist americans?
posted by chaz at 11:40 AM on February 15, 2006

Christ, that video is disturbing. Obviously difficult to tell from a short clip, but it really looks as if he's been driven mad. And the response was to handcuff him to a cell door.
posted by jack_mo at 11:43 AM on February 15, 2006

stinkycheese said 'Is Fox making jokes about this now?'

Eh? How would that be a joke?
posted by jack_mo at 11:45 AM on February 15, 2006

I like to listen to the conservative radio blowhards from time to time - you know, 'know thine enemy' and all that - and caught Rush Limbaugh this afternoon calling on Bush to arrest and imprison journalists publishing these photos.

He claims that Lincoln did it - arresting reporters during his presidency who aided the enemy by undercutting the war effort. I don't know if this is true, but it strikes me as yet another example of how the far right is willing to wipe their ass with the Constitution in order to save their war, their President, and their asses.

Unbelievable. Yet I'm not really all that shocked, anymore.
posted by NationalKato at 11:53 AM on February 15, 2006

"The network said the masturbation had been forced".

The people at Abu Ghraib have been locked up, tortured, and who knows what all. Fox's suggestion that these men were choosing to engage in a circle jerk of their own volition - esp. considering their culture - strikes me as pretty off-colour humour at best. I have no doubt that many Fox readers would've read that sentence and had a chuckle.
posted by stinkycheese at 12:19 PM on February 15, 2006

Abu Ghraib is where we lost the war in Iraq. And it's where we guaranteed the war on terrorism will last for the foreseeable future. Mission accomplished. posted by ook

I couldn't have said it better. And as shocked as we all may be, it's still not going to change a fucking thing. No commander level military personnel are going to be charged, no administration personnel will lose their appointed positions, no congresscritter is going to have the balls to impeach anyone, nothing will change.

And in a few years, when the children of those prisoners grow up, and when children like this get older; we cannot be terribly surprised when they make it a holy manifest to destroy the U.S. Because, were the shoes on the other feet, I'm sure you would do the same.
posted by dejah420 at 12:35 PM on February 15, 2006

That's, um, a pretty interesting take, stinkycheese.
posted by crunchland at 12:45 PM on February 15, 2006

Abu Ghraib is where we lost the war in Iraq. And it's where we guaranteed the war on terrorism will last for the foreseeable future. Mission accomplished.

U.S. fears Abu Ghraib is 'Jihad University'

"U.S. commanders in Iraq are expressing grave concerns that the overcrowded Abu Ghraib prison has become a breeding ground for extremist leaders and a school for terrorist foot soldiers.

...'Abu Ghraib is a graduate-level training ground for the insurgency,' said an American commander in Iraq.

...The perception of the prison as an incubator for more violence is the latest shift in how Abu Ghraib has been seen — once a feared torture dungeon of the Hussein government, then the center of the storm over prisoner abuse by Americans and ever since a festering symbol of the unsolved problems of handling criminals, terrorists, rebels and holdovers from the Baathist era."

posted by ericb at 12:54 PM on February 15, 2006

I can't believe the bastards responsible for allowing -- or ordering -- that bastard to do what he's doing aren't serving any time at all.

As soon as the scandal broke, everyone in the chain of command from Rumsfeld down to the assholes who abused the prisoners should have been fired and Bush should have made a public statement expressing regret and renouncing torture.

I think this is what stinkycheese was trying to link to. It's all old news to the Pentagon:

"The abuses of Abu Graib have been fully investigated," he added. "When there have been abuses, this department has acted on them promptly, investigated them thoroughly and where appropriate prosecuted individuals."

posted by kirkaracha at 12:58 PM on February 15, 2006

I'm not trying to be weird here. I just thought it was a bizarre caveat to put in the piece. Whenever news is qualified in this manner, ie. "initial reports suggest..." or, in this case, "the network said...", it stands to reason that the truthfullness of what is being reported is suspect.

I just think that casting doubt on the coercion of the group masturbation is: a) a strange thing to qualify; and b) probably going to be found funny by a lot of people reading the article. Further, I suspect the writer at Fox knew that when he or she wrote it.

Am I alone in this?
posted by stinkycheese at 1:00 PM on February 15, 2006

kirkaracha: That was my first link, yes. The second link I posted was to the Fox article I was talking about with jack_mo (and crunchyland). From the same Fox article:

"SBS refused to give details on the source of the photographs, and the authenticity of the images could not be verified independently."

Fine, great. So why qualify individual acts in the pictures/video further on in the article? It seems very strange to me.
posted by stinkycheese at 1:03 PM on February 15, 2006

The photo dejah linked of the little girl was part of a series taken a year ago. I wonder what happened to her.
posted by homunculus at 1:09 PM on February 15, 2006

homunculus - of all of the appalling things I've seen since the war started, that series may be the most heartbreaking and infuriating.
posted by ryanshepard at 1:32 PM on February 15, 2006

homunculus - of all of the appalling things I've seen since the war started, that series may be the most heartbreaking and infuriating.

Intellectually, I can make the argument that images of people who have been killed, or of grieving family members, are of no relevance to the issue of whether a war is justified or not -- all wars, by definition, will generate such images.

Emotionally, however ... damn.
posted by pardonyou? at 1:49 PM on February 15, 2006

Am I alone in this?
No. It struck me as a bit odd also. No shit it was forced. I would not have immediately come to your conclusion about it being a joke, but now that you mention it I suppose some freaks could be sitting in front of the television saying "NO SHIT it was forced! Ha! Make the sandn_____s jerk off! Heh! U-S-A! U-S-A!" Etc. Funny stuff. *puke*
posted by zoinks at 2:00 PM on February 15, 2006

Sounds like NPR is about to make their first report on this on All Things Considered 5:00 PM hour here on east coast.
posted by zoinks at 2:03 PM on February 15, 2006

War is an ugly, vicious, brutal affair.

This is not war.

As a former service member for one of the few times in my life I feel ashamed of that association. When something like this is done it is a stain on the honor of the armed forces of the United States and is an affront to everything we are supposed to stand for.
We should work to remove this black mark. We should work to redeem ourselves.

I cannot believe that more people have not been relieved of duty. I cannot believe that more men or officers have not come forward. I certainly cannot believe that anyone associated with this affair has not resigned their commission in protest. I could not live with being associated with such a thing. This is truly despicable.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:16 PM on February 15, 2006

There's a pretty good book about this type of shit if any of you are interested: The Banality of Evil.
posted by bardic at 2:25 PM on February 15, 2006

*phrase from a book, ahem*
posted by bardic at 2:25 PM on February 15, 2006

It's actually the subtitle - Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil.
posted by ryanshepard at 2:36 PM on February 15, 2006

bardic - which is to say, you had it the first time.
posted by ryanshepard at 2:50 PM on February 15, 2006

When are the moderate americans going to stand up against this? Why do we never hear from the non-extremist americans?

Spot on.
posted by Amanojaku at 2:57 PM on February 15, 2006

Well. This is a first. I looked at the pictures, reluctantly. I didn't know what to say or do.

And then, I finally did something I've never done before.

I wrote my congressman.

I hope like hell he listens, and I hope like hell that other people are writing the same letters. In the grand scheme of things, I don't think I did much. I'd like to do more.

While I figure that out, if any of you are interested, you can hunt down (no pun intended) your representative and write to him or her here.
posted by TeamBilly at 3:40 PM on February 15, 2006

Why do we never hear from the non-extremist americans?

Such as ... you and me?

Who exactly are the non-extremists? I've heard a lot of people condemn the torture at Abu Ghraib who aren't extremists. Don't Presybterians count as moderate?
posted by mrgrimm at 3:58 PM on February 15, 2006

And then, I finally did something I've never done before.

I wrote my congressman.

IMO, you should also write to him about Darfur. I think we can realistically affect more significant change there. If we wanted to, that is.
posted by mrgrimm at 3:59 PM on February 15, 2006

That photo of the little girl is terribly affecting.
posted by Astro Zombie at 4:55 PM on February 15, 2006

dejah420: And in a few years, when the children of those prisoners grow up, and
when children like this get older; we cannot be terribly surprised when they make it a holy manifest to destroy the U.S. Because, were the shoes on the other feet, I'm sure you would do the same.

Of course Americans would do the same- we have immeasurable volumes of popular culture that suggest that America is somehow always on the brink of some Red Dawn or the like, needing to defend America, and the bravest most heroic Americans are those who would go batshit on the "bad guys". We are the next Nazis of course, we are Hitler's Germany with nuclear weapons. And we are as self-aware of it as the Germans were then.


As for what I, as a lone citizen can do: nothing. Absolutely nothing. I have zero power, we collectively have zero power, and everything we think we can do is really nothing more than (pardon the phrase) a complete circle jerk. What, hold a protest? Write our congresspersons? Our Seattle Senator, Maria Cantwell, does nothing but send back form responses whenever I've written polite, well-phrased letters stating my opinion and desire for her to represent Seattle and Washington in a certain way. The loser voted down the Alito filibuster for god's sake... and that's a Senator from a fairly left-wing area of this country!

We have no power, there is nothing you can do. This is a runaway train, you can't stop it. GIVE UP for god's sake. Well, you can leave the country- that's what you can do. Take your ideals, and strive to go make some other country the beacon of hope and light America once incorrectly thought it was. No helping this country, it's terminally ill.


About the only thing of substance I can do is promise that if children like that get older, and I'm still around, they can contact me. I'll happily buy them a gun, a few boxes of ammo, and a star map to the homes of retired Senators, right-wing commentators, etc, etc. What they choose to do with it is up to them of course. But I believe in the 2nd amendment, and invite wronged Iraqis to get their American citizenship and exercise their civil liberties. Better that, than them thinking they have to blow up a shopping mall to get revenge.

We can't diminish the anger of these people who've been so wronged, and we would be cruel to even expect them to forgive and forget. We as a country are like a horribly abusive parent who knows that their child is going to grow up and get their revenge. Our only hope in avoiding another 9/11 is to teach these people that their enemies are not "average americans", and certainly not ones in the major urban centers, and that attacking the World Trade Center or places like that does no more good than we did by killing that girl's parents, or torturing random people for shits and giggles. Now, if they kidnapped Jenna and Barbara and took similar photos, replete with hoods and forced masturbation and non-lethal weapon wounds and barking german shephards... that might be a bit more focused, and wouldn't bother me at all.
posted by hincandenza at 5:01 PM on February 15, 2006

We didn't cause Darfur. Directly, anyway.
We should be fucking humble about this. If Dick Cheney spraying bullets all over some guy isn't a metaphor intended to smack you across the face, I dunno what is.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 5:26 PM on February 15, 2006

>>Why do we never hear from the non-extremist americans?

You do. They're simply more interested in issues like gay marriage, tax cuts, abortion, and the Dean scream. 2004 showed us that American voters don't care about trivial things like war, incompetence, lies, imperialism, illegal invasions, etc.
posted by skallas at 5:30 PM on February 15, 2006

The SBS "Dateline" broadcast that broke the new Abu Ghraib photos/videos has hit the Internet. (Download direct or, even better, download it via BitTorrent.)

After seeing the broadcast, it seems likely that SBS appears to have held some material back. The broadcast featured a photo of a woman who was forced to expose her breasts on camera. But we know there is more than that in that particular set of photos. The Taguba Report specifically cites that there was a photo of an American soldier having sex with an Iraqi woman.

From The Village Voice's article on this subject:
"...a note smuggled out of Abu Ghraib by a female prisoner claimed that American guards were raping the female detainees. There are few women in the prison; the note said some of the women were now pregnant. According to a report last week in The Guardian (U.K.), the note urged the Iraqi resistance to bomb the jail to spare the women further shame. Amal Kadham Swadi, one of seven Iraqi female attorneys who are attempting to represent detained women, visited a detainee at a U.S. military base in Baghdad last November and later told The Guardian, "She was the only woman who would talk about her case. She was crying. She told us she had been raped. Several American soldiers had raped her. She had tried to fight them off, and they had hurt her arm. She showed us the stitches. She told us, 'We have daughters and husbands. For God's sake don't tell anyone about this.'"

International Occupation Watch Centre (IOWC), an NGO based in Baghdad, has said one former detainee has told them of the alleged rape of her cellmate.

"She claimed she had been raped seventeen times in one day by Iraqi police in the presence of American soldiers."

In addition, Iraq-based Union of Detainees and Prisoners (UDP) has reported the story of a mother of four who was detained in December, who killed herself after being raped by U.S. guards while they made her husband watch at Abu Ghraib prison.
posted by insomnia_lj at 5:48 PM on February 15, 2006

holy shit insomnia
posted by puke & cry at 5:56 PM on February 15, 2006 [1 favorite]

"Why do we never hear from the non-extremist americans?"

Because, once they finally see how badly their government has lied to them, and how blaintant their excesses have been, they get pissed off... and subsequently dismissed as extremists.

I admit that I approached this war as a bit of an extremist. I firmly believed it was a bad idea, and I felt it was necessary and important to put out all the information I could opposing conflict, as all the news sources were flooded with pro-war rhetoric.

That said, nowadays I find myself talking to former fencesittters who are suddenly interested in Iraq and in politics in general, and who want to talk about some of the things I have written about. I often have to guide them away from specuation, and towards known facts and evidence.

I know enough soldiers to know that there are both good and bad sides to the conflict, but it seems pretty clear at this point that bad news still overwhelms the good. Life in Iraq is, in general, worse than during Saddam, and the level of violence, abuse, and corruption is extreme. The facts of what we know with some degree of certainty are bad enough... you don't need to speculate too wildly.
posted by insomnia_lj at 6:04 PM on February 15, 2006

I keep seeing the faces of the victims. They all seem very dignified, unshakeable and willing. I bet that drove Grainer fucking nuts, knowing that they are all stronger than he. It takes a real man to endure the pain as it takes a real man to make right choices. Grainer is weak, his pals/partners in crime are weak.

I know that those military criminals will be treated like heroes in prison. A real show of balls would be to hand them over to the enemy and say "Ok, an eye for an eye. Do what you will with these unworthy dogs."

The U.S. would be seen in a completely different light. I know, just day dreaming, but maybe we could trade Grainer for that reporter chick.
posted by snsranch at 6:09 PM on February 15, 2006

hincandenza, I'd like to say that you're too negative, but I can't come up with an argument to back me up. Anyone else?
posted by brundlefly at 6:15 PM on February 15, 2006

Life in Iraq is, in general, worse than during Saddam...

Life in Iraq is indisputably worse than during Saddam. Water is still sketchy as all hell, electricity is off more than it is on, there are endless orphans and traumatized citizens, and nuts with guns own the streets.

When Saddam was in power you were in deep, dire shit if you pissed off the wrong people — but on the whole, you knew when to keep your mouth shut and your eyes averted. There was a level of personal safety and security in that, that has gone completely out the window.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:28 PM on February 15, 2006

brundlefly, I wish I was less negative. But combined with my personal life an utter shambles these days, this morbid shame at the hell that my country is, and the understanding that human kind is unredeemably awful pretty much just leaves suicide as the only rational response. I can do nothing but sit in mute horror, really, and that doesn't leave anything for me to do but turn off my own lights.

Hell, reading five fresh fish's description of the Saddam era sounds an awful lot like the Bush-era US: okay if you toe the line, but piss off the wrong people and you'll be quickly disappeared to some eastern european gulag where we still can only see hints of what happens to you.
posted by hincandenza at 7:44 PM on February 15, 2006

Holy shit. Watch the SBS-Dateline report and you'll start screaming for heads to roll. The two sickest of the known fucks (Grainger and England) are paying a small price (short stints in jail), but when you see the carnage you know there were high-level people involved. At the very least the CIA were outright murdering people by bleeding them to death, commanders ordered grunts to use live weaponry in a scene reminiscent of the Black Hole of Calcutta, and guards were more into filming the destruction instead of putting an end to the carnage.

That was one big fucked-up scene. It wasn't just a pair of mentally-deficient sickos that caused all that. It's a transparent whitewash, and for over two years, no one seems to have done a damn thing about.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:03 PM on February 15, 2006

Sorry, apparently seven guards jailed. B.F.D.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:03 PM on February 15, 2006

hincandenza writes "brundlefly, I wish I was less negative. But combined with my personal life an utter shambles these days, this morbid shame at the hell that my country is, and the understanding that human kind is unredeemably awful pretty much just leaves suicide as the only rational response. I can do nothing but sit in mute horror, really, and that doesn't leave anything for me to do but turn off my own lights. "

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Don't even joke about that. Listen, stuff is pretty shitty in the world right now (and that may be true of your personal life as well... I know that it's true of mine), but nothing is ever so bad as to merit that. Moving to another country? Yes. Starting over in some way? Yes. Insurrection? Yes. Suicide. Hells no.

I just lost most of my home town and am leaving it, probably for good, while my country turns fascist around me, and the rest of the world is spiraling towards all-out holy war, but there's still me, goddamnit, and I'm pretty fucking badass. And I'm pretty sure you are too, just based on your response to what's going on around you. As long as there are people like you and me around, there's still hope for the planet. And we don't want to let the planet down, do we?

Sorry if I'm taking that paragraph way too seriously, but I just had to say something.
posted by brundlefly at 8:08 PM on February 15, 2006

Sorry, apparently seven guards jailed. B.F.D.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:03 PM JST on February 16

You forgot about the officer who was reprimanded though.
posted by Jenga at 8:12 PM on February 15, 2006

Thank you for catching that, brundlefly.

Hin, don't you be getting that depressed. It's a shitty world, but it is improving. Brazil's poor are becoming a powerful political force, Canada continues to bumble along helping the less fortunate countries, China's Commie party is vocally disagreeing with censorship, Haiti's people are demanding a President that will help them, and so on.

Light comes through the cracks.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:10 PM on February 15, 2006

Why should life be less hopeless for us today than it was for people living during WWII? Why should it be worse than for us than it was for the Germans, or the Italians, or the Japanese, or, for that matter, than it was for the Iraqis under Saddam?

We all have rights, even though they are being eroded. We should all exercise them.
posted by insomnia_lj at 9:20 PM on February 15, 2006

er.. more hopeless for us today. Not less. But still, you get the idea.
posted by insomnia_lj at 9:20 PM on February 15, 2006

Light comes through the cracks.

Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:25 PM on February 15, 2006

Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in.

We asked for signs
the signs were sent:
the birth betrayed
the marriage spent
Yeah the widowhood
of every government --
signs for all to see.

I can't run no more
with that lawless crowd
while the killers in high places
say their prayers out loud.
But they've summoned, they've summoned up
a thundercloud
and they're going to hear from me.

Leonard Cohen, Anthem
posted by five fresh fish at 11:17 PM on February 15, 2006

Salon has more photos [NSFW], which they say haven't been published anywhere else.

The material, which includes more than 1,000 photographs, videos and supporting documents from the Army's probe, may represent all of the photographic and video evidence that pertains to that investigation.

They got a DVD from "someone who spent time at Abu Ghraib as a uniformed member of the military and is familiar with the CID [Criminal Investigation Command] investigation." The DVD has 1,325 images and 93 video files of suspected detainee abuse.

They also have an editorial explaining their reasons for publishing the photos.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:48 AM on February 16, 2006

Also:

Accompanying texts from the CID investigation provide fairly detailed explanations for many of the photographs, including dates and times and the identities of both Iraqis and Americans. Based on time signatures of the digital cameras used, all the photographs and videos were taken between Oct. 18, 2003, and Dec. 30, 2003.

posted by kirkaracha at 10:51 AM on February 16, 2006

A new FPP has started as a result of these new files/documents published by Salon.
posted by ericb at 11:12 AM on February 16, 2006

New FPP deleted -- "This post was deleted for the following reason: posted yesterday, please put this info in that thread if it's new."
posted by ericb at 11:59 AM on February 16, 2006

If the Bush administration's interpretation of espionage law is upheld, then everyone is breaking the law, all the time.
posted by homunculus at 12:51 PM on February 16, 2006

Salon should just put them all online.
posted by smackfu at 12:54 PM on February 16, 2006

Invisible Men: The not-people we're not holding at Guantanamo Bay.
posted by homunculus at 10:59 PM on February 16, 2006