Obama defends abuse photos U-turn

[Ziggy Stardust]

While I'm still in Chocula-world, I wish that the three terrorists that were tortured by waterboarding for information hadn't planned and participated in the September 11, 2001 attacks. But, they did and we had to find out what else they were planning to do.

Actually, they were waterboarded because the administration was trying to find a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq to justify their invasion. One of the interrogators was recently on the Rachel Maddow Show, and testified that the terrorists were actually being quite cooperative using normal interrogation methods, but since they wouldn't admit to the nonexistent link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, the Vice President's office sent a memo telling them to use "enhanced techniques" such as waterboarding to force a false confession. The waterboarding had NOTHING to do with preventing another terrorist attack.

Waterboarding was considered and agreed on as the most extreme non-injurious method to use by CIA, the military, the administration, and the Justice Department. To expand and reiterate, the US personnel who did the acts Elfdart listed on Page 2 should be nailed to the wall for torture and possibly murder; at least manslaughter for items B and C, but it does not appear that there's a legal basis for prosecution of waterboarding.

Nope. Nobody but the White House lawyers wanted to use waterboarding. The executive office essentially forced other branches to adopt the practice.

[Count Chocula]

I concede on both Ziggy's and Elfdart's points. Was it just CIA and the administration who asked for a Justice opinion?

[Ziggy Stardust]

I concede on both Ziggy's and Elfdart's points. Was it just CIA and the administration who asked for a Justice opinion?

Someone might be able to correct me on this, because I am a bit hazy on the details, but my understanding is that the CIA raised questions as to the legality of waterboarding techniques, and Bush (after meeting with Cheney, Gonzales, and White House/DoD lawyers) passed an executive order allowing them. The Justice department began investigating the legal approval of waterboarding in early 2008, which I believe was what led to the release of the White House memos explicitly allowing the practice (even if it was only used on three suspects).

EDIT: In your defense, though, it is a really uncertain issue, especially since the media has been very sporadic with its reporting on the subject.

[Dominus Atheos]

Marcy Wheeler points out a few more reasons to criticize this action:

It's inexcusable, Obama's flip-flop on the DOD abuse photos.

Not (just) because I think he's wrong on the law and he'll probably not get Cert with SCOTUS, making this a big pose.

Rather, it's inexcusable because Obama issued new guidelines on FOIA that he now abandons:

The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears. Nondisclosure should never be based on an effort to protect the personal interests of Government officials at the expense of those they are supposed to serve. In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive branch agencies (agencies) should act promptly and in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of the public.

All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open Government. The presumption of disclosure should be applied to all decisions involving FOIA.

Granted, a bunch of Generals and Colonels would undoubtedly be embarrassed by the disclosure of abuse that happened on their watch (above all--as Nell suggests--Stanley McChrystal, newly tapped to take over in Afghanistan). Granted, some of those Generals and Colonels (the aforementioned McChrystal) would probably lose their next promotion if these pictures became public. Granted, pundits speculate, abstractly, that the release of another round of torture pictures will inflame the already volatile Iraq and Afghanistan.

But those are all invald excuses, according to President Obama's own FOIA guidelines. If you're going to set a rule, follow it yourself.

Now, as I said, I think Obama will lose this fight and I think he may well know and be planning on losing it. But I have a suggestion, in the meantime, that would prove Obama was concerned about the troops and not just playing politics with his own FOIA rules. The military dismisses concerns that this is just a big attempt to protect the powerful who commanded units that engaged in systematic abuse. The military says they've been working really hard to punish people for this abuse.

But Pentagon officials reject ACLU allegations that the photos show a systemic pattern of abuse by the military.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the Defense Department has "always been serious about investigating credible allegations of abuse."

"The policy of the Department of Defense is to treat all prisoners humanely, and those who have violated that policy have been investigated and disciplined," he added.

More than 400 people, Whitman said, have been disciplined based on investigations involving alleged detainee abuse. The discipline ranged from prison sentences to demotions and letters of reprimand.

Fine. We can't have the pictures (until SCOTUS denies Cert)? Let's have a detailed accounting of what the military has done to hold the abusers accountable. How were those 400 people punished? You can spare the names--but where are they now? And more importantly, who were their commanding officers?

You want to protect our troops--that I support--while sustaining these new FOIA laws? Make sure no one is hiding and protecting their own self-interest by hiding behind the troops. A list of punishments--if appropriately serious--and commanding officers will not expose any of our service men and women. More importantly, if the military has prosecuted abuse like it says, it'll prove to those in Iraq and Afghanistan we're serious about stamping out abuse. And if we haven't (call me crazy, but I've got a hunch)? Then it'll provide a way to move forward and prevent a bunch of cowards from hiding behind the troops for their own failure of leadership.

[hongi]

Holy shit.

LONDON (Reuters) – Photographs of Iraqi prisoner abuse which U.S. President Barack Obama does not want released include images of apparent rape and sexual abuse, Britain's Daily Telegraph newspaper reported on Thursday.

The images are among photographs included in a 2004 report into prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison conducted by U.S. Major General Antonio Taguba.

Taguba included allegations of rape and sexual abuse in his report, and on Wednesday he confirmed to the Daily Telegraph that images supporting those allegations were also in the file.

"These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency," Taguba, who retired in January 2007, was quoted as saying in the paper.

He said he supported Obama's decision not to release them, even though Obama had previously pledged to disclose all images relating to abuses at Abu Ghraib and other U.S.-run prisons in Iraq.

"I am not sure what purpose their release would serve other than a legal one," Taguba said. "The sequence 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 depiction of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it."

The newspaper said at least one picture showed an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner while another is said to show a male translator raping a male detainee.

Others are said to depict sexual assaults with objects including a truncheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube.

The photographs relate to 400 alleged cases of abuse carried out at Abu Ghraib and six other prisons between 2001 and 2005.

[Edi]

All of those incidents were mentioned in news reports at around the time of the Taguba hearings and in testimony. It's good that the general came forward and confirmed them now.

The problem with not releasing them is that it allows the public to once again sweep all of the systemic abuses under the carpet and further the culture of impunity prevalent in the US armed forces where anything goes as long as it happens to non-Americans and isn't splashed in graphic detail over prime time news screens. And even when it does, usually nothing is done about it save for some theatrical handwringing and maybe a few wrist-slaps.

[Beowulf]

So yes, my claim is bullshit: it CAN cause injury. I will repeat, however, that it HAS NOT physically injured either the three Guantanamo prisoners on which it was used or the thousands(?) of American soldiers who were subjected to it. From a cold-hearted point of view, I suppose you could classify waterboarding as a form of non-damaging torture right up there with sodium pentothal.

Sodium pentathol being one of the drugs used to carry out lethal injections.

Appeal to emotion. It's also used medically in general anesthesia to induce unconciousness.

[Sea Skimmer]

Sodium pentathol being one of the drugs used to carry out lethal injections.

Appeal to emotion. It's also used medically in general anesthesia to induce unconciousness.[/quote]

And thats its only purpose in lethal injection too. The kill chemicals are pancuronium bromide to stop the lungs, and potassium chloride to stop the heart.

[Elfdart]

Count 'em: one -no two!- fucktards who were so interested in being pedantic little twats about a post I made almost two weeks ago that they missed the point. Someone who thinks water torture is no big deal lumps it in with the injection of drugs into an inmate as something he considers harmless.


And now back on subject:

http://www.reuters.com/article/featured ... SN28341544

Pentagon denies report Iraq prison photos show rape
Thu May 28, 2009 12:58pm EDT
(Updates with denial; previous LONDON)

WASHINGTON, May 28 (Reuters) - The Pentagon on Thursday denied a British newspaper report that photographs of Iraqi prisoner abuse, whose release U.S. President Barack Obama wants to block, include images of apparent rape and sexual abuse.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the Daily Telegraph newspaper had shown "an inability to get the facts right".

"That news organization has completely mischaracterized the images," Whitman told reporters. "None of the photos in question depict the images that are described in that article."

Thursday's Telegraph quoted retired U.S. Army Major General Antonio Taguba, who conducted a 2004 investigation into abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, as saying the pictures showed "torture, abuse, rape and every indecency."

The newspaper said at least one picture showed an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner while another is said to show a male translator raping a male detainee.

Others were said to depict sexual assaults with objects including a truncheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube.

In an interview with the New Yorker magazine published in 2007, Taguba was quoted as saying that he saw a video of a male American soldier in uniform sodomizing a female detainee.

Photographs of abuse at the jail outside Baghdad that were published in 2004 damaged the image of the United States as it fought an escalating war against insurgents in Iraq that caused deep resentment throughout the Muslim world.

Whitman said he did not know if the Telegraph had quoted Taguba accurately. But he said he was not aware that any such photographs had been uncovered as part of the investigation into Abu Ghraib or abuses at other prisons.

OBAMA BLOCKING PICTURES' RELEASE

He said the Telegraph also wrongly reported earlier this month that some of the images whose release Obama is trying to block had previously been aired on Australian television.

"I would caution you whenever you see a subsequent story on photos in this particular publication," he told reporters. "They now have, at least on two occasions, demonstrated an inability to get the facts right."

Taguba, who retired in January 2007, included allegations of rape and sexual abuse in his report.

Earlier this month, the Obama administration reversed course and decided it would fight the release of the photographs, which the American Civil Liberties Union is seeking to obtain through legal action.

In April, the administration said it would comply with a court order to release the pictures. But Obama changed course after military commanders warned of a backlash in Iraq and Afghanistan that could add to the danger facing U.S. troops.

Taguba was quoted in the Telegraph as saying he supported Obama's decision not to release the pictures.

"I am not sure what purpose their release would serve other than a legal one," he said. "The sequence 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."

He added: "The mere depiction of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it." (Reporting by Andrew Gray in Washington and Luke Baker in London; Editing by David Storey)

Why would a right-wing paper like the Torygraph make up such a story?

[Crazy_Vasey]

Because it would be embarrassing for the Labour government that it quite clearly has the knives out for? Remember, it's the 'left-wing' party of UK politics that's been in power for the last twelve years and stands to lose from any embarassing War on Terror stories.

[bobalot]

Abu Ghraib photos show rape of prisoners

* Duncan Gardham and Paul Cruickshank
* May 29, 2009

PHOTOGRAPHS of alleged prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib and other prisons which Barack Obama is attempting to censor include images of rape and sexual abuse, it has emerged.

At least one 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 with objects including a truncheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube.

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

Details 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.

This week he confirmed their existence to London's The Daily Telegraph.

The graphic nature of some of the images is likely to explain Mr Obama's attempts to block the release of an estimated 2000 photographs from prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan despite an earlier promise to allow them to be published. General 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, the Obama 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.

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

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.

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.

General 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".

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".

Telegraph, London

[CaptainChewbacca]

I wasn't aware there had been female prisoners at Abu Gharib.

[Edi]

Not as many as male prisoners. Duplicate thread merged to existing one.

[bobalot]

I wonder what the apologists will say this time?

[Elfdart]

I wonder what the apologists will say this time?

Probably that raping inmates isn't "really" rape, just like water torture isn't "really" torture. That there were only a few rapes and the inmates had to be raped to stop a ticking time bomb. The usual bullshit.

Oh, and they were wearing short burkas.

[Dominus Atheos]

I wonder what the apologists will say this time?

They were just following orders (Where have I heard that on before?), we need to look forward and not back, releasing the the pictures would put out troops in danger (not punishing the people responsible and keeping them in their same positions puts Iraqis in danger, but no one really cares about them), and they wouldn't have been in prison if they hadn't been hardened terrorists who deserve to be tortured.

In other words, the same thing the apologists in this tread are saying.

[The Original Nex]

According to McClatchy, Obama flipped because of Maliki

Why'd Obama switch on detainee photos? Maliki went ballistic
Nancy A. Youssef | McClatchy Newspapers

last updated: June 01, 2009 06:42:02 PM

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama reversed his decision to release detainee abuse photos from Iraq and Afghanistan after Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki warned that Iraq would erupt into violence and that Iraqis would demand that U.S. troops withdraw from Iraq a year earlier than planned, two U.S. military officers, a senior defense official and a State Department official have told McClatchy.

In the days leading up to a May 28 deadline to release the photos in response to an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit, U.S. officials, led by Christopher Hill, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, told Maliki that the administration was preparing to release photos of suspected detainee abuse taken from 2003 to 2006.

When U.S. officials told Maliki, "he went pale in the face," said a U.S. military official, who along with others requested anonymity because of the matter's sensitivity.

The official said Maliki warned that releasing the photos would lead to more violence that could delay the scheduled U.S. withdrawal from cities by June 30 and that Iraqis wouldn't make a distinction between old and new photos. The public outrage and increase in violence could lead Iraqis to demand a referendum on the security agreement and refuse to permit U.S. forces to stay until the end of 2011.

Maliki said, "Baghdad will burn" if the photos are released, said a second U.S. military official.

A U.S. official who's knowledgeable about the photographs told McClatchy that at least two of them depict nudity; one is of a woman suggestively holding a broomstick; one shows a detainee with bruises but offered no explanation how he got them; and another is of hooded detainees with weapons pointed at their heads.

Some of the photos were of detainees being held in prisons, while others were taken at the time a detainee was captured.

"It was not so much the photos themselves, but that the perception that they would be Abu Ghraib-type photos," added the senior defense official, who said U.S. officials were worried "about the potential street consequences" of making the photos public.

Iraq is scheduled to hold a referendum by July 30 on the accord, which calls for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops by the end of 2011. If the accord were rejected, the U.S. would have to withdraw from Iraq within a year of the vote or by the summer of 2010. Some U.S. officials fear that would be before Iraq's security forces are ready to protect their country on their own.

The status of forces agreement calls for the U.S. to train Iraqi forces in specialized areas such as aviation and intelligence gathering and to step to the side as Iraqi forces take control of their communities.

Maliki's office, Iraq's deputy prime minister and the foreign minister didn't answer calls seeking comment.

Denis McDonough, the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, said that Obama "has been clear that releasing the photos would have no benefit except to potentially increase the risk to our troops. He's also made clear that the existence of these photos was only known because the acts were investigated and those who undertook them were sanctioned."

With tensions rising again in major Iraqi cities such as Baghdad and Mosul, Maliki feared that "if you add this (the photos) to that mix, it could very easily provide an incentive to the extremists" to use more violence, a State Department official said.

That, in turn, might cause U.S. and Iraqi commanders to reconsider the troop withdrawal from urban areas, which would be a major setback to Maliki's government and to the Obama administration, which is determined to withdraw troops from Iraq as it escalates the U.S. presence in Afghanistan.

The administration, which as late as April had agreed to release as many as 2,100 photos, said in the two weeks before the deadline approached that the release could trigger a backlash against American troops.

After U.S. officials notified Maliki, the prime minister put "heavy pressure" on Hill and Army Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, to stop the release, the senior U.S. defense official said.

In early May, Odierno and Gen. David McKiernan, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, said they objected to the release of the photos. Both Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said they changed their minds largely because of objections from U.S. commanders in the field, but they never mentioned Maliki's reaction. Col. James Hutton, Odierno's spokesman, declined to comment, citing ongoing litigation.

The senior U.S. defense official said that Hill and Odierno were the "primary voices" urging Obama to reverse his decision. They were joined by U.S. Gen. David Petraeus, the head of the U.S. Central Command; and McKiernan, who also were concerned that the photos, while not comparable to the pictures of U.S. guards abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib, could ignite anti-U.S. violence. The Senate is expected on Tuesday to confirm Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal as McKiernan's successor.

Several days after the meeting, Odierno returned to Washington, and he and Gates took their concerns to Obama. It took "considerable lobbying" before the president changed his mind, the senior defense official said.

On May 13, Obama appeared on the South Lawn of the White House and said: "The publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals. In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger."

The photos are part of a 2004 lawsuit that sought the release of photos that were part of investigations of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib and a half dozen other prisons. The Pentagon objected to the release of the photos, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a lower court ruling to release them.

On Monday, the ACLU released a letter signed by a dozen organizations calling for the release of the photos.

"The Pentagon should release the photos while reaffirming to the world that the U.S. repudiates such barbaric behavior and is committed to dismantling the culture that allowed it to occur. In the end, full disclosure of the crimes committed by our government will make us all safer," the letter said.

(Jonathan S. Landay, Warren P. Strobel and Marisa Taylor contributed to this article.)