PDA

View Full Version : Real Abu Ghraib photos * VERY NWS *



SLR
03-15-2006, 09:53 AM
http://www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/chapter_1/index.html
might clear things up

These photos were taken using cameras owned by Cpl. Charles A. Graner Jr. and Staff Sgt. Ivan Frederick II. Most of the photos depict detainees shackled naked in stress positions with women's underwear or hoods on their heads. In addition to the detainees, the pictures show Graner, Frederick, Spc. Megan Ambuhl, civilian contractor Adel Nakhla and a soldier the Criminal Investigation Command (CID) identifies as Sgt. Cathcart.

In the fall of 2003, the military police at Abu Ghraib systematically abused detainees using interrogation techniques similar to those once approved by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld -- forced nudity, stress positions, hooding and sleep deprivation, to name a few. Rumsfeld had approved harsh interrogation methods on Dec. 2, 2002, in a then classified memo for interrogators at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The memo was leaked to the media and eventually released by the White House in June 2004, sparking heated debate, domestically and internationally, about whether these tougher U.S. interrogation policies amounted to approval of torture and violation of international law.

In the year following Rumsfeld's memo, the Bush administration's legal framework for employing these interrogation techniques, and the approved techniques themselves, changed multiple times. The techniques Rumsfeld approved ostensibly were intended for use only on suspected terrorists and so-called unlawful enemy combatants, with trained interrogators receiving case-by-case approval. Instead, they spread widely through the military's interrogation operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and spiraled out of control, Army documents show. After the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in April 2003, U.S. soldiers and intelligence personnel began to use these techniques in Iraq, where they were informally "accepted as SOP [standard operating procedure] by newly arrived interrogators," according to an August 2004 report on Abu Ghraib abuses by Maj. Gen. George R. Fay. By September 2003, Gen. Geoffrey Miller had arrived at Abu Ghraib, allegedly with a mandate to "Gitmo-ize" interrogation procedures at the prison.

The official guidance for proper interrogation techniques in Iraq became confused, even contradictory. "By mid-October, interrogation policy in Iraq had changed three times in less than 30 days," explained Fay. An Army investigation by Lt. Gen. Anthony R. Jones found that the military command in Iraq, led by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, failed to provide proper oversight of interrogators at Abu Ghraib, contributing to the abuse. Some soldiers involved were inadequately trained in interrogation, investigators found.

These failures set the stage for many of the abuses apparent in these photographs. Military intelligence officers and civilian contractors began ordering military police to "set the conditions" for interrogations, Army investigators found. "This is not doctrinally sound due to the different missions and agendas assigned to each of these respective specialties," Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba said in his March 2004 report.

"It is clear that pressure for additional intelligence and the more aggressive methods sanctioned by the Secretary of Defense memorandum resulted in stronger interrogation techniques. They did contribute to a belief that stronger interrogation methods were needed and appropriate," concluded a Defense Department review of detainee operations, led by former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger and released in August 2004. "We cannot be sure how much the number and severity of abuses would have been curtailed had there been early and consistent guidance from higher levels. Nonetheless, such guidance was needed and likely would have had a limiting effect."

The abuses at Abu Ghraib that were photographed on Oct. 18 and 19, along with detainee testimony, show the visceral effects of the interrogation tactics once sanctioned for detainees at Guantánamo by Rumsfeld. Many of the photos depict a single detainee shackled naked to a bed with underwear on his head. A July 1, 2004, report on Abu Ghraib by the Army's CID said this man was "possibly" a detainee named H-----. Graner, however, whose camera was used to take most of these photos, told CID investigators on April 6, 2005, that these pictures showed another detainee named W-----, whom Graner called "Taxi Driver." Graner said he was ordered by a civilian interrogator working at Abu Ghraib to strip, shackle and hood the detainee as part of a sleep deprivation program.

Regardless of which detainee these pictures show, both H----- and W----- told eerily similar tales to Army investigators. "They stripped me of all my clothes, even my underwear," H----- told CID investigators on Jan. 18, 2004. "They gave me woman's underwear that was rose color with flowers in it, and they put the bag over my face. One of them whispered in my ear, 'Today I am going to fuck you,' and he said this in Arabic."

"I faced more harsh punishment from Grainer [sic]," H----- continued. "He cuffed my hands with irons behind my back to the metal of the window, to the point my feet were off the ground and I was hanging there for about 5 hours just because I asked about the time, because I wanted to pray. And then they took all my clothes and he took the female underwear and he put it over my head. After he released me from the window, he tied me to my bed until before dawn."

W----- gave a similar account of being hung up by his hands -- like the detainee pictured here -- in a statement to CID investigators on Jan. 21, 2004. "[T]he American police, the guy who wears glasses, he put red woman's underwear over my head. And then he tied me to the window that is in the cell with my hands behind my back until I lost consciousness," he said in a statement.

The Fay report found that there was "ample evidence of detainees being forced to wear women's underwear." Fay concluded that the use of women's underwear may have been part of the military intelligence tactic called "ego down," adding that the method constitutes abuse and sexual humiliation.

The Fay report also indicates that W----- was a military intelligence detainee "of potentially high value." Fay concluded that it was difficult to ignore the circumstantial likelihood that military intelligence had ordered the military police to "set conditions" for interrogation. "MI [military intelligence] should have been aware of what was done to this detainee," Fay wrote.

On Oct. 21, a few days after most of these photos were taken, the International Red Cross began a three-day tour of Abu Ghraib to evaluate the conditions for detainees. At the end of the visit, the Red Cross told the military leaders at the prison about incidents of "handcuffing, nakedness, wearing of female underwear and sleep deprivation," according to the Fay report.

The military took no action, initially. Two months later, on Dec. 24, Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the head of military police at Abu Ghraib, sent the Red Cross a letter that glossed over the problems "close to the point of denying the inhumane treatment, humiliation and abuse," according to Fay.

-- Michael Scherer and Mark Benjamin

B20EF
03-15-2006, 09:54 AM
Page not working

ZEDGE
03-15-2006, 10:00 AM
cant see shit captain

SLR
03-15-2006, 10:02 AM
Fixed

l8braker
03-15-2006, 10:04 AM
Awwww, the terrorists are being mistreated... :rolleyes:

mac_82
03-15-2006, 10:16 AM
At least we aren't cutting their heads off.....

:rolleyes:

in*10*se
03-15-2006, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by l8braker
Awwww, the terrorists are being mistreated... :rolleyes:



Originally posted by mac_82
At least we aren't cutting their heads off.....

:rolleyes:


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

yellowsnow
03-15-2006, 10:47 AM
i think that's sick. yeah they're lowlife terrorists, and yeah they need to interrogate them to know further potential attacks. But to succumb to that level of inhumane imprisonment is just sad.

wtf is with american soldiers putting women panties on their heads? "military intelligence tactic called "ego down," adding that the method constitutes abuse and sexual humiliation." great tactic, why don't you add another miliary tactic called "Terrorists humiliation so funny har har" i doubt this "military tactic" does anything other than humiliate the prisoners for only the amusement of the soldiers. i'm sure they're having a good laugh doing this kind of crap.


:thumbsdow

i swear, the movies/images from terrorists and the americans are so similiar. makes you wonder if the americans ever execute their prisoners... they're just not dumb enough to put it on film.

SLR
03-15-2006, 06:08 PM
I dont know, but I would rock that chick thats in those pictures.. shes be a freak in bed hahaha

Weapon_R
03-15-2006, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by yellowsnow
i think that's sick. yeah they're lowlife terrorists, and yeah they need to interrogate them to know further potential attacks. But to succumb to that level of inhumane imprisonment is just sad.


Are they really lowlife terrorists? Were they arrested and charged in a fair court of law? Were they given access to a lawyer? In any case, i'm not convinced that every prisoner in there is a terrorist as there are instances when an entire street or section is raided, and all men arrested.

95EagleAWD
03-15-2006, 10:28 PM
Regardless of what they've done, or who they are, POWs should never be treated like this.

Toms-SC
03-16-2006, 12:21 AM
Just making an appearance in this thread, you all know where I stand by now.

Papa Luv it
03-16-2006, 01:39 AM
Originally posted by Weapon_R


Are they really lowlife terrorists? Were they arrested and charged in a fair court of law? Were they given access to a lawyer? In any case, i'm not convinced that every prisoner in there is a terrorist as there are instances when an entire street or section is raided, and all men arrested.



:werd:

5abi
05-27-2006, 08:50 PM
My question is, if they are terrorists shoudl they be treated like shit? shit america behave as terrorists by terrorising already detained people?

If they go there to try to stop terrorists maybe they should behave as an acceptable model for the world they are policing. They should do what they'd like done to them. Treat their POW as is written under ganeva..regardless how the toher side deals with it..if not they are just the same as the other side which is so "evil".

werd to wr.

kaput
05-27-2006, 09:23 PM
.

Toma
05-27-2006, 10:57 PM
Sick shit...
better titties then I expected on that Iraqi prostitute :poosie:

Xtrema
05-28-2006, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by 5abi
My question is, if they are terrorists shoudl they be treated like shit? shit america behave as terrorists by terrorising already detained people?


With that said, the last thing you want is for a prison to turn into a resort where everyone get 3 meals with exercising in the sun.

I do however have a problem with holding them without charges or evidences.

jaysas_63
05-28-2006, 02:49 AM
Originally posted by l8braker
Awwww, the terrorists are being mistreated... :rolleyes:

wow......are you really that stupid?

tapout
05-28-2006, 03:09 AM
Originally posted by jaysas_63


wow......are you really that stupid? :werd: dont wish this upon anyone thats fuckin harsh pictures:barf:

jay42w8
05-30-2006, 10:37 PM
this might not have anything to do with abu grhraib.....but are some of u guys saying that u would not condone torture in order to get info to thwart a terrorist attack?

Idratherbsidewayz
05-30-2006, 11:05 PM
Lol. You guys are idiots.

For an army the Americans are ridiculously tame. The kind of torture that Saddam did on innocent people is something to complain about. Bunch of idiot anti-American bandwagon jumpers...

3g4me
06-01-2006, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by Idratherbsidewayz
Lol. You guys are idiots.

For an army the Americans are ridiculously tame. The kind of torture that Saddam did on innocent people is something to complain about. Bunch of idiot anti-American bandwagon jumpers...

:werd: You think that saddam would treat u.s. hostages any better?

l8braker
06-01-2006, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by Idratherbsidewayz
Lol. You guys are idiots.

For an army the Americans are ridiculously tame. The kind of torture that Saddam did on innocent people is something to complain about. Bunch of idiot anti-American bandwagon jumpers...

Amen to that. :thumbsup:

dragonone
06-03-2006, 05:08 AM
from my pov, or a lot of us, that kind of treatment is torture and dehumanizing
but if a friend or family died in 9/11 and i know that it was linked partly to these ppl, i don't think that kind of treatment is even enough
just think of it that way

eljefe
06-03-2006, 07:29 AM
Originally posted by dragonone
from my pov, or a lot of us, that kind of treatment is torture and dehumanizing
but if a friend or family died in 9/11 and i know that it was linked partly to these ppl, i don't think that kind of treatment is even enough
just think of it that way

Umm yeah except for the fact that Iraq and Iraqi citizens had no involvment in 9/11 so thats entirely irrelevant.:dunno:

PureMuscle
06-10-2006, 06:42 PM
think about the thousands of ppl free'd from Abu Gharib, do you think the U.S would free terrosists.. now what if one just one innocent person out of a hundred terrorists was tortured for the pure enjoyement of the american guards.. is it worth it to "Punish, these terrorists"?
what if it was you?

adidas
06-13-2006, 01:04 AM
i feel like killing a whole bunch of american soldiers now :guns:

robpark
06-13-2006, 01:27 AM
Wow....that's sick..... Barbaric behaviour....

If the American government/military allows that kind of deviant, malicious behaviour, then they truly are no better than the terrorists.

I am no bleeding heart liberal...but saying "Saddam wouldn't treat American POWs any better" is a mute point. The entire reason they removed Saddam was because he was a monster, by that same logic someone should take-over the 'States if this is how they allow prisoners to be treated.

So much for leading by example.

I mean there are soldiers standing next to mutilated people with big smiles on their faces...WTF?

$lick_rYz
06-13-2006, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by robpark
Wow....that's sick..... Barbaric behaviour....

If the American government/military allows that kind of deviant, malicious behaviour, then they truly are no better than the terrorists.

I am no bleeding heart liberal...but saying "Saddam wouldn't treat American POWs any better" is a mute point. The entire reason they removed Saddam was because he was a monster, by that same logic someone should take-over the 'States if this is how they allow prisoners to be treated.

So much for leading by example.

I mean there are soldiers standing next to mutilated people with big smiles on their faces...WTF?

:werd:

tapout
06-15-2006, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by adidas
i feel like killing a whole bunch of american soldiers now :guns: Then that would make you as dirty as they are.

Tech2
06-15-2006, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by Idratherbsidewayz
For an army the Americans are ridiculously tame. The kind of torture that Saddam did on innocent people is something to complain about.

Yes, what we need is some perspective here. What went on in that prison just months before makes the charges of torture against american soldiers seem rather low level in comparison. In the year before the war one of the hussein sons (i forget which) told the warden to make room for 1000 or so new prisoners. So he did, by executing that same number by firing squad. This is the prison where themometers were inserted into prisoners' urethras and broken. Where people were hung by the wrists with thier arms behind their backs untill their shoulders dislocated. Where cattle prods and electrical generators where used on prisoners. Where body parts would be sent by courier to families who wanted to know where their dissapeared son or daughter went. I'm not sure about Abu Ghraib having rape rooms, but other Iraqi prisons did, where you could watch your wife raped and murdered before you were shot in the head.

And the americans are considered horrible in the international community for insulting someone's manhood untill his feelings were hurt.

What I liked about the article was that it did get into what is considered unacceptable behavior by americans. And iwhat I personally think is unacceptable as well. But in a situation like Abu Ghraib at that time, what I personally think is acceptable is not a guiding concern. At that time insurgents were claiming that americans were too weak to win a war. Then detainees who are expecting to be tortured to death end up released back to the street with tales of regular meals and a distinct lack of physical punishment. Then they are captured again after an attack on a convoy, and sent back to prison. This time the guard has a blown up friend in the hospital and the same guy in jail. He is not impressed, and does something that would regularly be considered too far. Sure, I don't think he should be made fun of, or kept from sleeping, or frightened. Unless he is trying to kill me and my coworkers.

I would have liked to see the article get more into what are to me much more disturbing questions that Abu Ghraib brings up. Like how it was guards working in american prisons back home who were brought in to work in Iraq, bringing in their own expertise and experience and applying it where they were. American prisons are absolutely fucked, without a war going on. If these Abu Ghraib acts are unnacceptable, why is it ok for american prisons to function the way they do? What does this say about double standards in American and International thought? These questions of double standards are what frighten and upset me about what happened in Abu Ghraib.

Tech2
06-15-2006, 11:55 PM
It also comes to mind the conditions in other prisons around the world. For example Brazil had a full fledged war in prisons and slums throughout the country with hundreds dead because of prisoner treatment (and drug business I would imagine). But due to the double standard we hear very little about this, and it's not the Brazillian governement that's blamed.