Abu Ghraib Abuse Photos "Show Rape" - Maj. Gen. Taguba

Gotta love The Daily "Torygraph"'s sub-head:

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

...should be - "which U.S. President Obama is continuing to hide - following former president Bush's lead - include images of apparent rape and sexual abuse..."

Anyway, the link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...395830/Abu-Ghraib-abuse-photos-show-rape.html

Excerpt:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

Your thoughts on this?
 
Well it's sick...really really sick. I never knew male homosexual sex was part of warrior culture. :ban: Warrior culture - you gotta love it. :ak47:
 
Well it's sick...really really sick. I never knew male homosexual sex was part of warrior culture. :ban: Warrior culture - you gotta love it. :ak47:

So, are the rapes LESS sick somehow if they're hetero? Or just less surprising to you??? Can you elaborate please?

:confused:
 
Less surprising. Warrior culture requires manhood, not male homosexuality. It's very odd for me to hear that.

So the females were terrorists too? :dunno:

But there's nothing mutually exclusive about manhood and male homosexuality.

Haven't you ever heard of "bears"???

Also, did you see my thread a while back about the correlation found between intense homophobia and homosexual fantasies and acts???

(see Larry "No, Really, I'm STRAIGHT" Craig, too)
 

Legzman

what the fuck you lookin at?
I see no rape only a dog barking at a paper bag
 
But there's nothing mutually exclusive about manhood and male homosexuality.

Haven't you ever heard of "bears"???

Also, did you see my thread a while back about the correlation found between intense homophobia and homosexual fantasies and acts???

(see Larry "No, Really, I'm STRAIGHT" Craig, too)

I don't think you can go in any typically "masculine" male situation, openly express homosexuality, and not get the ever-living shit beat out of you. But maybe it's just my (inner city) upbringing environment and culture that differs from others. I don't know.

But in my inner circle growing up, if you were a homosexual you would most likely be put in intensive care. It happened to some gay guy who was hitting on my buddy once. He put him in a coma. He beat him so bad it was ugly. He also got sued big time for tens of thousands. Not to digress....Another extrememly homophobic environment was the locker room in athletics. I mean it was so homophobic you can't even begin to imagine. I can't even begin to imagine how homophobic the military environment is.

Also, I've never bought into the "homophobes are closet homosexuals" theory. I truly believe that's a myth. Just my :2 cents: Anyway, I think we are moving away from the OP here; the OP is about Obama and his unwillingness to show the world atrocities by American military personel. It's a very controversial topic indeed.
 

Namreg

Banned
this is idiotic. the they think iraqis/afghanis will forget this happened, they try to sweep it under the carpet instead of dealing with it in the open. if they had dealt with it in vietnam, then maybe this "culture", if that is what you want to call it, would have changed by now.

as it is, other people will simply continue to say that your soldiers are criminals because they know their government will let them get away with whatever they do.
 
I don't really understand what Obama is waiting for. He could've ended our occupation of Iraq and, we, and the world, could begin the process of putting this horrific mistake war behind us....

If we stay there then we tarnish whatever credibility we have left.
 
The only thing that I criticize the Democrats here in the U.S. is for campaigning on an "end the war" platform and never actually trying to end it.

It is hard not to see that the U.S. economy relies on War and that's why we're over there.
 
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f333/GreyHawk121/ePluribusMedia/ImNotHim.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JI4X0u5tOg&feature=related

This is where the rhetoric hits the road.

Obama is now faced with hard realities ...
Making promises is easy, giving lectures on values and ideals is easy, being president is not ...

Guantanamo - When will it close? Who will take them? Before he promised to end the military tribunals .. now he is offering "fairer" military tribunals.

Timetable for getting out of Iraq - First 6 months, then 12 months, then 16 months, now as of February 2009 - 19 months and "even after the drawdown, a sizable U.S. force of 35,000 to 50,000 U.S. troops will stay in Iraq longer"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009...an/main4833153.shtml?source=RSS&attr=_4833153

(A sizable U.S. force in Iraq with no timeline? indefinitely? As conditions on the ground warrant? - who does that sound like?)

"4 more years of Bush"? "Bush's 3rd term?"

Some will say that he is just trying to reach a compromise with the right. To "listen to opposing views and take them to heart."
Compromise is good. But what about our core values, can we compromise them?
Are they really values if you only hold them when it is expedient?

Who can we turn to for guidance?

Barack Obama - "What makes the United States special, what makes you special, is precisely the fact that we are willing to uphold our values and our ideals even when it's hard.... not just when it's easy. Even when we are afraid and under threat. Not just when it is expedient to do so. That's what makes us different."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEuxeDJYTIg
(Who's different?)

Change? Was this the change we were expecting? :yinyang:
 
Release the damn pictures!, yepp I said it...why did these or dumn fuckers commit crimes and take pictures of it??? These were not soldiers, they were bad apples and if the media is triying to make us vets look all like crazies then so be it...it's nothing new. Why did they kept thses pictures anyways? what is the obssesion to see people doing bad stuff in this country? I bet you those photos or some will be released or "leaked" into the internet.
 
They do not plan to release those pictures. Which they should not. It is bad enough to be a rape victim, posting the pictures for the world to see is another blow to the victim's.

In a news clip posted by CNN, Obama says the pictures are no worse than the Abu Ghraib photos already in circulation.
Moreover, I would think that many of the victims (perhaps not all) would want the public to know so that the truth can be understood about the extent of the crimes that have been committed.

Mohammed Ali, 23, is another person who says he was abused by U.S. military. Speaking from Falluja in Anbar province, he recalled hearing U.S. soldiers take photos while he was beaten, a bag shoved over his head. He needed two operations to repair damage to his stomach, he said.

"I was sat on the floor. (They) would beat me two at a time. They put cigarettes out on me and threw cold water on me. That lasted for two days," he said.

"I think it's better for the pictures to be released so those in the Middle East and the West can see what happened."
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20090529/tpl-uk-iraq-torture-43a8d4f.html


Finally, attempting to cover it up will have the same negative effects or worse ... especially once the photos are eventually released (which most legal scholars believe they will in the end).
 
Maj Gen Taguba, who retired in January 2007, said he supported the President’s decision, adding: “These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency.

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

Nice logic there- If we reveal that Iraqis are being raped and tortured, then the Iraqi's might not be very happy about it and it will make the rapist torturers look bad, so we should cover it up instead.

:helpme:
 
"4 more years of Bush"? "Bush's 3rd term?"

I don't think that's the case at all, nor do I think he's trying to court the right. Most likely he's just dealing with the practical realities of the mess Bush left behind. And let's remember he didn't have his first full CIA security briefing until just after the election, a briefing that may have tempered his intentions. Personally I'm glad to see he appears capable of flexibility in thought and action. Were he a strict idealogue like Bush he'd be far more likely to make mistakes.
 
They do not plan to release those pictures. Which they should not. It is bad enough to be a rape victim, posting the pictures for the world to see is another blow to the victim's.

I see where you're going with this - about not victimizing the victim yet again - but I don't think it can be applied here.

When agents of a government (be they military or spies, or whatever) commit atrocities (of varying severity, but atrocities nonetheless), that is of deep political and historical significance. Should photos of Holocaust victims (either the piles of dead or the walking corpses liberated from the camps) not been taken, printed, published, etc. because it would humiliate the victims???

At some point it needs to be insisted that the only people who should be humiliated and ashamed by the pictures are those involved with the acts, be it directly or indirectly.

In the case of prisoners being raped, I'd bet that their faces could be blurred out for any public display of the photos.

The truth of this matter should be known.

More here:

"Taguba said that he saw 'a video of a male American soldier in uniform sodomizing a female detainee.'"

from here:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/06/25/070625fa_fact_hersh?printable=true
 
...Most likely he's just dealing with the practical realities of the mess Bush left behind.

^ Even if this is true... Would people really have elected him if he said "I will sometimes cover up torture when necessary" and "I will stay in Iraq as long as is required depending on conditions there"?

...Personally I'm glad to see he appears capable of flexibility in thought and action. Were he a strict idealogue like Bush he'd be far more likely to make mistakes.

The problem is, this "flexibility in thought and action" does not follow his own statements and convictions offered during his campaign. Instead (in these cases) this "flexibility in thought and action" is following the very same policies of Bush who, according to many (including you) is a mistake.

In doing so, he not only presents himself as a hypocrite - confirming the "just words" accusations of the past, but he sends people precisely down the course they were trying to avoid.

They did not elect him because he said that he would be "flexible in thought and action", they elected him because he promised them "change".
 
Top