Rape, Torture In Pics, Ex-U.S. Gen. Says

Antonio Taguba, Who Led Abu Ghraib Prisoner Abuse Probe, Agrees Photos Should Not Be Released

(AP)  A former U.S. general said graphic images of rape and torture are among the photos of Iraqi prisoner abuse that President Barack Obama's administration does not want released.

Retired Major Gen. Antonio Taguba, who oversaw the U.S. investigation into the abuses at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison, was quoted as telling Britain's Daily Telegraph in an article Thursday that he agreed with Mr. Obama's decision not to release the pictures.

"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," Taguba was quoted by the Daily Telegraph. "The mere description of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it."

It was not exactly clear what photos Taguba was referring to.

A U.S. military official in Baghdad, however, said "the photos referred to are ones that Taguba is not aware of." The official spoke on condition of anonymity Thursday because he was not authorized to release the information.

The military is referring all questions on the matter to Washington. The Obama administration did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Iraqis called for an investigation into the Daily Telegraph report.

"The Iraqi government must demand the reopening of the Abu Ghraib scandal case again," said Ali Kadom, 45, who works at the Ministry of Transportation.

Khalid Bashi, 35, a trade office owner in Baghdad, said Mr. Obama should release the photos to put a stop to a possible scandal.

"Sooner or later, more scandals will appear that show crimes against humanity carried out by American troops in Iraq," Bashi said.

The prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib exploded after photos taken by soldiers appeared in 2004.

Click here to see alleged photos of prisoner abuse.

According to the Telegraph, the new photos depicted much more serious abuses than previously documented. One photo reportedly showed an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner and another was said to show a male translator raping a male detainee, the paper reported.

The Telegraph said the photos related to 400 cases of alleged abuse between 2001 and 2005 at Abu Ghraib and six other prisons. It was not immediately clear from the newspaper report who had seen the photos or how they might have been obtained.

The newspaper said the images in the photos were backed up by statements from Taguba's report into prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib obtained under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.

[Dgunner]

If the guilty parties are not revealed then the next time and the next time will be become the norm. The pictures need to be revealed so the parents of the soldiers whom are held at a reverent level by thier parents and wives and children can know what animanls they raised married and are supposed to be looking toward for moral compass.They need to imprisoned at the very least and in the cases of undoubted guilt shot in public in the town squares of the cities and towns they came from. What sickens me is the soldiers who didn't commit the physical crime are in my mind more guilty for not shooting the POS in the brain pan. I personally killed hundreds maybe had a hand inthousands of deaths related to combat. Never did I or anyone to my knowledge rape any of them. I know this went on in vietnam but not in my line of sight or I wouldn't be here . I would have probably been fragged or shot in the back by FRIENDLY fire.

[mariahwelch]

Thank you, CBS News for this. Thank you, quiller6...
sportsnut50 says, "Does the public really need to see that stuff anyway?"
YES.
For all the soldiers who weren't creepy sadists
who had to follow creepy sadists
and still have nightmares about it
YES stop it by showing it...

[quiller6]

The policy of not releasing photographs is nothing to do with protecting American troops. It has to do with protecting America's image. If the Germans decided not to release photographs today of atrocities committed by their troops - we would all say "coverup". If America cannot stand the truth - that is America's problem. All closed organisations have a problem with the spotlight. If the same argument is applied to police misdemeanours, then we can see what the result of coverups is. It is about time America got over the culture of "our boys, right or wrong".

[markth_wi]

The concept of officially sanctioned state torture was exactly the kind of stuff we have fought wars and suffered the loss of many of our servicemen and women to prevent.

But now according to some of our friends over at the AEI, this perverse behavior is acceptable somehow. I think the founders would be appalled and we SHOULD be ashamed of ourselves.

Circumstances in prisons and in wartime are bad as it is, one need only review the circumstances at Andersonville to understand that, but to so easily discard the rights and privileges that we certainly would want extended to ourselves, if the situation was reversed is what underscores the racist and short-sighted nature of the defense of torture arguments.

The next time we have a major war, and our prisoners are not treated well, the neoconservative politicians advocating for no prisoner rights , or accountability or advocating outright torture will of course be found to be utterly reprehensible with the lives of others, but until then we must bear the demented rumblings of those who would deny rights to one particularly despicable group.

We certainly would not tolerate this discussion if we were talking about our children or fellow citizens, but ONLY because these guys are allegedly bad dudes and wrapped up in the terrible events of 9/11. The problem that becomes pregnant is what is the "next" argument - who get's such "special" treatment is it Al-Queda guys, just citizens like Jose Padilla, or maybe just regular criminals and other "low life's".

So it seems our responsibility - as citizens - to say we must draw the line - here - no further. This is unacceptable for all the reasons of history and all the worse things similar rationalizing will do to endanger our nation in the future.

[Mixolydian8X11]

"war and torture go hand in hand. There are more important things in this world that need to be solved besides worrying about a few suicide bombers that were tortured."

. . . Then what are you defending? Doesn't sound like you're defending the America envsioned in 1776.

[Mixolydian8X11]

Torture is wrong. No exceptions. Disagree? Throw your bible in the trash, take your crosses off the wall, and bury your American flag.

[evilbusheviks]

TORTURE IS TREASON, TORTURE IS INSANE , TORTURE IS IN-HUMANE

TORTURE IS ANTI AMERICAN
Posted by Strike-Hold
*******************

Ok guys, here is the deal from the rest of your country.
posted by McHineguy
*****************

Hardly from the "rest" of the country.....only the minority party of those still condoning illegal TORTURE as they continue to worship the immoral bushevik cabal.

You'll never get it, since the republiCONS always put party first before country, and then try to twist in the wind.

The EVIL busheviks need to be tried for WAR CRIMES, and if found guilty, hanged for their immoral crimes against humanity!

[evilbusheviks]

by sportsnut50:

"Or they can ask John McCane to come and discribe....."

******************

This country has already heard enough out of mcpain's mouth, as he makes the best case for term limits as a professional politician!

[evilbusheviks]

notblue delusionally states:

"Try to do this without insults and name calling."

****************

You mean just like rush limp-rod and the FUUXX NoNooz propagandists like hannity, beck and o'liely? Pot...kettle......black.

Making excuses for the most immoral and EVIL mis-administration in our nation's history is not helping the republiCON cause.

[sportsnut50]

Or they can ask John McCane to come and discribe how ALL people are treated as prisoners of War over the past 200 some years. He can discribe in detailed for them with out pictures how they did it in Viet-Nam what they did to those guys for years, to get confessions and information, most people wouldn,t have the stomic to hear it never less see it in a picture. Most prisoners are treated the same in all the wars we have had. Im not saying its right but that the way it is, so why now after all these years has the world gotten some moreral value over this kind of war time extracting information, besides trust me when the Soldiers get captured over there there not treated great either. Not saying its right but there isn,t any rules in war time no matter what anyone thinks, there is no such thing as a sivilized war and there never will be when you kill other humans to win.

[sportsnut50]

Does the public really need to see that stuff any way. War time is not a childs tea party, its murder of other humans, bottom line. What goes on at war time is the ultimate horror story at the least. If the world want,s to see some prisoner horror pictures then let them go and look at the miles of real film of WW 2, Vietnam War, Korien War, and all the rest, and don,t fore get the real live Black and White pictures the SS took of shooting and buchering inocent Jewish woman and childrean, by the thousands, buy shhoting them naked over a big pit in the back with machine guns. We all know what war is about and how its fought, so why bring out the pictures now, a statement would do just as good to discribe the way it was done to Iraq prisioners, USA prisoners in WW2, K War, and teh 12 million Jewish people. We all know what the human race is capable of doing to its other human beings.

[cbsantispin]

I also agree, the Abu Ghraib prison photos should not be released. Hundreds die just from a cartoon drawing, so why expect anything different from real life photos.

[kawosa]

These horrendous acts of crriminal behavior have caused the ultimate insult upon this great country and every soldier who died for her freedom. This matter will be dealt with eventually no matter how much the cronies try to sweep it under the governmental rug. The best possible solution should have been enacted immediately with swift and severe punishment in the backing. You can color this any shade you like or hide it time and again but it will not be quieted until it is dealt with appropriately.
Shame is brought upon us all by this and if Obama is half the leader we think he is, it will be handled at the highest level possible. Otherwise this so called leader is nothing more than just another yoyo bobbing on a string.

[norcalruss]

Gen Taguba included allegations of rape and sexual abuse in his report, and yesterday 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," Gen Taguba, who retired in January 2007, told the paper.
++++++++++++++++
This is why an investigation needs to be made. These were not merely some terrorists who were waterboarded for eminent attack info, these were Iraqi government officials, or citizens who were doing no more than resisting an unjustified foreign invasion. I think the people resisting the release of the photos are the ones who have the most to lose: the CIA, the military, and the Bush Administration officials. The investigation into Abu Ghraib was just a sham to blame a few enlisted men on atrocities that most likely came from much further up the chain of command. Even the Obama administration has some guilt. I think they are trying to slow down the process so that other policies on their agenda, like the economy and health care won?t get pushed to the back burner. A special prosecutor needs to be appointed or they are just going to try to sweep this under the rug and let war criminals off Scot Free again..

[McHineguy]

"... But we have been told that three hardened terrorists were waterboarded and they gave up information that saved lives...."

Since we were told this by the people responsible for the torture, who are understandably anxious to prevent reprisals against themselves, it is not what anyone with any common sense would call believable.

And even if we did get info after torture, there's no way to know if torture was the only way to get it. And torture also gets you a lot of other bogus info that you must then spend a great amount of time verifying. It is a terribly inefficient method of getting information. And out of all the people you torture, any that DON'T crack merely become much more hardened and resolved to NOT give up any information.

I can think of so many more creative ways of getting people to talk that I cannot accept the excuse that the interrogators couldn't think of those ways. Your average marketing department of any company knows more about getting people to do what they want than these so-called interrogators that I can only conclude they are all grossly incompetent.
What happened to the old standbys of getting the subject "liquored up" for chrissake?

"...Now, there are many who hate Bush/Cheney so much that they ignore these reports or discount them so they can claim higher morals. In fact, it isnt about the moral authority of torture, its about being able to seek revenge on Bush/Cheney...."---Posted by McHineguy

For some people yes, it is about revenge against Bush/Cheney, and not a small number of those are Republicans calling Bush/Cheney RINOs

But for many others it has nothing to do with revenge, it is about setting precedent. If Bush/Cheny were to be convicted and jailed then any future VP would be acutely aware of the consequences should he or she break the law in a similar fashion. Claiming that this is revenge is a simplistic defense that is false besides.
Posted by tmittelstaed at 2:28 PM : May 28, 2009

OK, so Obama wont release "the rest of the memo" that Cheney says demonstrates we gained information. Seems to me, if there is nothing there he would release the rest. Therefore, a rational person would conclude that at least Obama thins Bush gained information.

It doesnt matter that the information may have been gained in other manner. What matters is that there was the POSSIBILITY that innocents were saved by harsh treatment of vile terrorists. Maybe a better interogator could have done it other ways. Doesnt matter, these interrogators used what they had and it worked. maybe we can do better next time and the CIA should review that possibility. But, faced with limited time, limited, knowledge, if an interogator has the POSSIBILITY of saving innocent lives by harsh treatment of vile terrorists. SAVE THE LIVES.

Iunderstand the downside of torture. I am not in favor of it. But I will not criticise a soldier OR a commander in chief for doing what appears to be the surest way to SAVE INNOCENT LIVES.

And please stop with the line about getting false information when you torture someone. It flies in the face of the obvious. when you tell them it will stop AFTER you stop the upcoming event, they will either help you or mislead you. If you stop the event you have the answer. If you dont stop the event, you have to keep trying.

I dont care about the times it gains no information. Neither do the intended victims in both cases.

And I dont want future Presidents or Vice Presidents to be fearful of any action that saves innocent lives. And that is the problem most of the debaters fail to recognize. If it saves lives WE WANT THEM TO DO IT.

And that is our values, innocent lives first. Deal with that before you try to convince any of us that Bush/Cheney did wrong in their harsh treatment of three known and admitted terrorists who had certain knowledge of impending terror attacks.

[McHineguy]

Briefly, if there is a realistic possibility to save innocent lives, we should be prepared for any actions. But, sadistic violence as shown in these photos should never be tolerated.
Posted by McHineguy at 1:51 PM .............

I may have confused the 2 different locations and situations. So I'll clarify my personal stand on things in general.
I recognize that there are times when extreme measures are necessary to save lives. These steps should always be taken in a solemn manner and never with pleasure and always when deemed to be a last resort.
There have been situations when actions have been taken that were not for necessity, but for pleasure and retrobution. That is not acceptable. An individual's morals and code of honor are false if they use the perceived failure of honor and morality of an opponant to justify their own inappropriate actions. The same applies to a country.
Posted by IrishWench01 at 2:16 PM : May 28, 2009

On this much we totally and completely agree.

[McHineguy]

"...Frankly, I dont buy into conspiracy theories. They almost always require the perpetrators to be both stupid and brilliant at one time, or patriotic and self serving...."

Obviously, since you don't believe the government conspired to hide torture from the world. But, they did.

"...No matter, the moral questions I posed based on this story are real. And thats what is important for this blog...."---Posted by McHineguy

OK then. How about this. War is very bad. The temptation for soldiers to do unspeakable things - Japanese rape of China, etc. etc. - is very high. As a result of all of this the leaders of the world got together and created a convention that we all signed, called the Geneva Convention that among other things outlaws torture of prisoners.

...

As for me, if giving all our locked-up terrorists a prostitute a day that they could screw all they wanted would allow us to gain more information out of them that would result in the capture of Bin Laden, I'd say bring on the hookers!
Posted by tmittelstaed at 1:34 PM : May 28, 2009

I shortened your post for my reply.

I dont believe our government hid their enhanced interrogation (torture) at GITMO. I believe they tried to cover up for the misguided soldiers at Abu Ghraib because it was damaging to our moral and inflamed the enemy. But I do not believe they condoned it in any way. But they have admitted actions at GITMO, even seemed to have briefed congrss on it.

I understand the need for the Geneva conventions. Many claim they do not apply here. But, no matter, they do not address the case where innocent lives are at risk. That is the disconnect I have with the military guys who somehow connect our treatment of terrorists who kill women and children with their personal honor. But, if in fact, saving women and children mean our soldiers are in greater trouble we still have no choice. Save the children or prove you cant.

I agree with the rest of your post, for the most part. War is terrible, soldiers will sacrifice anything to save their comrades. But the US "tortured" an oil fat terrorist for the chance to save innocent lives. I will not condem them for that. I would hope that others, in the samesituation would do the same.

[ajjaxtheleast]

If proven true or false a poster on another site with ID qstnevrything
gets the credit or blame:,,,,

"Sodomizing young boys with objects or physically,,,,

,,,IN,,,FRONT,,,OF,,,THEIR,,,MOTHERS",,!!

Now THIS, if true, is too much to joke about.

[tmittelstaed]

"... But we have been told that three hardened terrorists were waterboarded and they gave up information that saved lives...."

Since we were told this by the people responsible for the torture, who are understandably anxious to prevent reprisals against themselves, it is not what anyone with any common sense would call believable.

And even if we did get info after torture, there's no way to know if torture was the only way to get it. And torture also gets you a lot of other bogus info that you must then spend a great amount of time verifying. It is a terribly inefficient method of getting information. And out of all the people you torture, any that DON'T crack merely become much more hardened and resolved to NOT give up any information.

I can think of so many more creative ways of getting people to talk that I cannot accept the excuse that the interrogators couldn't think of those ways. Your average marketing department of any company knows more about getting people to do what they want than these so-called interrogators that I can only conclude they are all grossly incompetent.
What happened to the old standbys of getting the subject "liquored up" for chrissake?

"...Now, there are many who hate Bush/Cheney so much that they ignore these reports or discount them so they can claim higher morals. In fact, it isnt about the moral authority of torture, its about being able to seek revenge on Bush/Cheney...."---Posted by McHineguy

For some people yes, it is about revenge against Bush/Cheney, and not a small number of those are Republicans calling Bush/Cheney RINOs

But for many others it has nothing to do with revenge, it is about setting precedent. If Bush/Cheny were to be convicted and jailed then any future VP would be acutely aware of the consequences should he or she break the law in a similar fashion. Claiming that this is revenge is a simplistic defense that is false besides.

[IrishWench01]

Briefly, if there is a realistic possibility to save innocent lives, we should be prepared for any actions. But, sadistic violence as shown in these photos should never be tolerated.
Posted by McHineguy at 1:51 PM .............

I may have confused the 2 different locations and situations. So I'll clarify my personal stand on things in general.
I recognize that there are times when extreme measures are necessary to save lives. These steps should always be taken in a solemn manner and never with pleasure and always when deemed to be a last resort.
There have been situations when actions have been taken that were not for necessity, but for pleasure and retrobution. That is not acceptable. An individual's morals and code of honor are false if they use the perceived failure of honor and morality of an opponant to justify their own inappropriate actions. The same applies to a country.