Please read. It might make a difference.

[Solly Mack]

There is some confusion about the torture/abuse photos. I hope this clears some of that confusion up.


There are 2 sets of photos in question. They are NOT the same.

One set contains 2000 plus photos.(release date was May 28)

Additional 2000 pictures.

It added "the government is also processing for release a substantial number of other images". Up to 2,000 could be released.


The other set being the (44) photos the ACLU was expecting on May 28.

The ACLU photos in question

In a letter from the Justice Department to a federal judge yesterday, the Obama administration announced that the Pentagon would turn over to the American Civil Liberties Union 44 photographs showing detainee abuse of prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq during the Bush administration





by Solly Mack

Not New (Warning: picture heavy and graphic)

My thread talks about the difference in the 2 sets of photos, as well as pointing out that recycled pictures branded as new is bad and why.


by Vyan

These are NOT the pictures you're looking for...

Vyan's thread speaks of the ACLU pictures that were not released on May 28, 2009 as originally planned. Whether you believe Leopold or not, the links provided by Vyan of the ACLU documents describing the content of the photos show that the photos the ACLU are waiting for ARE NOT the rape/sexual assault photos mentioned in the Taguba report. Though the ACLU would very much like to have all the photos that were promised but not delivered.


TO BE CLEAR: The Taguba Report DOES mention sexual assault. Pictures that have been released at Salon's "The Abu Ghraib Files" back this up - keeping in mind that not ALL of the Abu Ghraib pictures/video stills have been released.



by Hissyspit

Scott Horton: "The Bogus Torture Coverup" - Photos Even More Sexually Explicit Than Reported


Hissyspit's thread speaks about the additional 2000 (plus) pictures that were also not released on May 28, 2009 as originally promised - and it also says the additional photos do include the rape/sexual assault pictures from Abu Ghraib that have YET to be released.


To recap:

There are 2 sets of photos.

The set (44 photographs) the ACLU was expecting on May 28 but did not get because the Obama administration changed its mind about releasing them.

The other set consisting of an additional 2000 photos - which newspaper accounts & others claim contain the rape/sexual assault pictures from Abu Ghraib. These were not released on May 28 either. (because the Obama administration changed its mind.)


The ACLU photos (44) stem from a previous lawsuit under the Bush administration - the court said the photos had to be released and Obama agreed. When Obama agreed to release the 44 photos he also said he would release an additional 2000 (plus) photos.


Neither set of photos were released on May 28.

[dionysus]

1. thx

[Solly Mack]

3. You're welcome

and Thank you :)

[blm]

2. I hope your post brings clarity to those still missing the whole picture.

.

[Solly Mack]

4. I think I needed a more titillating thread title

lol

Thanks, blm!

[malaise]

15. I'm for the release of all photos not showing the rape of

men, women, boys and girls. Living victims need protection.

[Solly Mack]

21. I want the ACLU and other human rights groups

to get all the pictures and documents they can. I want the lawyers of those detained to get all the documentation they can

I don't have to see it...but then I know America committed war crimes.

[jhrobbins]

46. This is the way I feel as well. I don't want to see any of the pictures,

but I want them released to people (the ACLU) who will do what is necessary. I can't even watch the commercial with Sarah McLachlan about abused animals - I'm a wuss about all of this kind of stuff. I don't need to see it to know it goes on and then to act on it. SOmeone else can see it if they want or need to and then tell me what I need to do.

[Patsy Stone]

54. I can't change the channel fast enough

when those commercials come on.

[inna]

39. obviously, faces (of victims) and genitalia (of all parties involved) should be blotted out in pics.

does that address your concern?

[dionysus]

5. kick

[redqueen]

6. Thank you!

I was wondering about this distinction earlier this week.

K&R

[Solly Mack]

29. You're welcome!

[rosesaylavee]

7. Thanks - this has helped.

K and R

[Karenina]

8. Context is EVERYTHING!

:hi:

[rosesaylavee]

13. For someone who has been trying to pay the least

amount of attention but still try to understand what happened - the subject just kills me - this is very helpful. The overview context is something I can and should handle to be an active/responsible citizen. The nitty gritty makes me physical ill just to contemplate.

:hi:

[Solly Mack]

25. It really is

and this is why

I found this while looking for something else and it pertains to what I posted.

Notice the Time article starts by addressing the so-called new photos from 2 weeks ago....in the link to my thread in the OP I caught the error a couple of weeks earlier.

But I digress :)

In the Times article I found, they first claim the Pentagon is talking about the 2000 photos, but they cross that out and say the "21" (actually 44) see the update posted at the Times article.

So now they are saying that when the Pentagon said the pictures didn't contain the photos of rape/sexual assault that Taguba described, the Pentagon meant the photos from the litigation (ACLU 21/23) and NOT the additional 2000

So when the reporter asked Gibbs about the Telegraph article, because the Telegraph conflated the 2 sets of photos, making it sound like they were all the litigated ones, Gibbs gives the Pentagon answer below

"MR. GIBBS: I would refer you very closely to the statement that DOD put out that the article is wrong and mischaracterizes the photos that are in question."

See what I'm saying?


Instead of addressing whether or not the 2000 pictures contain the rape/sexual assault photos, the Pentagon is only answering in terms of the ACLU (44) photos in litigation. And we know those photos don't contain the rape/sexual assault photos. So the answer doesn't cover the 2000 photos.

Telegraph article where they conflate the 2 sets of pictures

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5395830/Abu-Ghraib-abuse-photos-show-rape.html


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).

The Telegraph article makes it sound as if the photos are all part of the ACLU litigation.


Now the Times article

Times article

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/05/28/the-daily-telegraphs-rape-photo-claim/

"The article is incorrect," says Lt. Col. Patrick Ryder, a Department of Defense spokesperson. "It alleges that there were images of apparent rape and sexual abuse. This is incorrect. . . . None of the photos in question depict the images described in the article." By "photos in question," Ryder was referring to the roughly 2,000 more than 21 images* that President Obama recently decided not to release. At the briefing today, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs echoed the broad denial, saying that the Telegraph report was "non-factual."

See? The answer was framed only in the context of the ACLU litigation photos...but that's not what the reporter asked Gibbs...he asked about the article as a whole, clearly asking if those 2000 photos contained the rest of the Abu Ghraib photos.

So now we know by "photos in question" they mean ONLY the ACLU photos and not the additional 2000 photos

At least that's how the Times is framing it

which means the 2000 photos could contain the rest of the Abu Ghraib photos...but as they are not the ones in litigation, the comment from the Pentagon didn't cover them. Meaning, the comment from the Pentagon was evasive and not entirely true.



Did any of that make sense? LOLOLOL

[Solly Mack]

35. Ha! and read this after that...just breaking

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3899005&mesg_id=3899005

[chill_wind]

43. And now Reuters is doing the same-- framing things in the narrowest context

of the lawsuit photos and glazing over the the matter of the other photos Taguba referenced and HAS admitted to seeing. ("These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency.")

Reading it carefully, Reuters comes very close to creating an impression that the Telegraph fabricated his quote about rape photos -of any matter of record- wholesale. It's a slick piece of writing.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N2949228.htm

[Solly Mack]

45. and the 2000 additional photos are once again left out

I don't know if the remaining Abu Ghraib photos - Taguba has most definitely seen - are part of the 2000 but reports indicate that they are - and it's a reasonable question for people to ask - and they did ask when it was first reported that an additional 2000 pictures would be coming out.

There are a few things about the May 28th Telegraph article that cause it to be less than accurate - and because of that the Pentagon found it easy to dismiss the whole article. Yet the whole article referenced the 2000 photos and Taguba's comment as well.

and Taguba admits to the comment

and he says he hasn't seen the 44 photos but that he has seen the ones form his investigation (DUH, right?)...but it seems no one asked him about the other 2000 photos and if they contain the remaining investigation photos or not.

It's really seems almost deliberately confusing.

I need the full DOD statement that was referenced in the Times article and at the WH press briefing.

[dgibby]

9. Very enlightening. Thanks.

K&R!

[Solly Mack]

30. Thank you, dgibby

Don't know about enlightening but I do think it important to know which set is being referred to at any time....because it could make a big difference (in the future)

[spiritual_gunfighter]

57. Great post and clears up a lot

It is unfortunate that Gibbs seems to be willfully confusing the matters and dismissing the Telegraph article outright because of which photos they refer to.

[Hepburn]

10. Thanks, Solly. K&R...n/t

[Solly Mack]

14. You welcome, Hepburn!

[janx]

11. The Taguba report photos have been released,

and the Telegraph (and others) are sloppily trying to recycle some of those photos to pretend that they are the photos demanded by the ACLU.

[Solly Mack]

12. No, sorry, not all of the pictures from Abu Ghraib have been released

not by a long shot.

..and those pictures/videos make up the overwhelming majority of the Taguba Report...


http://www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/introduction/

"Also, the CID materials contain two different forensic reports. The first, completed June 6, 2004, in Tikrit, Iraq, analyzed a seized laptop computer and eight CDs and found 1,325 images and 93 videos of "suspected detainee abuse." The second report, completed a month later in Fort Belvoir, Va., analyzed 12 CDs and found "approximately 280 individual digital photos and 19 digital movies depicting possible detainee abuse." It remains unclear why and how the CID narrowed its set of forensic evidence to the 279 images and 19 videos that we reproduce here."

Somewhere along the line - over 1000 photos just disappeared, along with 74 videos.

[Mark Twain Girl]

16. Thanks for this important info as always, Solly. K&R. nt

[Solly Mack]

27. Hey MTG. Thanks!

[votingupstart]

17. very informative post n/t

[Solly Mack]

31. Thank you

[Canuckistanian]

18. A handy guide. Thanks

:hi:

[Solly Mack]

28. Hey Canuckistanian

Thanks

[spanone]

19. k&r...

[Solly Mack]

32. Thanks spanone

[Wednesdays]

20. K&R

:kick:

[Solly Mack]

33. It's Wednesdays! Thanks!

:hi:

[vogonity]

22. Thank you for posting this. An additional question

How exactly does the ACLU know what to ask for and/or sue for? How do they determine the existence of 44 photos in order to request them?

Furthermore, where did the most graphic pictures I have yet seen (I think on the dailybeast site, it was the one where they only posted two pictures), how did those get out if they weren't released?

[Solly Mack]

23. If you go to Vyan's thread you'll see links to documents that

describe the photos they are seeking - there are 21 photos considered responsive (meaning they pertain to the lawsuit) and 23 the that were previously considered responsive...so 44 total.

So the ACLU has documents describing the content of the photos...but they sued for the photos and want the photos.

The lawsuit goes back to the Bush administration. The court ordered the photos released. Bush, of course, balked.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

26. Thanks! This has been a point of confusion for so many, me included. nt

[Solly Mack]

36. You're welcome!

[chill_wind]

24. K & R

[Solly Mack]

34. Thanks chill_wind

[Patchuli]

37. This was not the America I know doing these things!!!!

PROSECUTE THE BASTARDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :nuke:

[pleah]

38. K&R

Not exactly the way I want to remember my 26th anniversary, May 28, 2009, but, to important not to be paying attention to.

Thank you for putting this together, even though I have read the other posts.

This administration will stonewall as long as the people let them get away with it. We must,imo, all band together and
force this administration and our representatives to do their damn jobs and hold these criminals accountable.

[George II]

40. I would read it, if you gave a clue of what it's about...now? Not worth the read, thanks!

[lonestarnot]

42. What?

:popcorn:

[destes]

55. Who was that masked man?

[George II]

56. Here's "what"...

The post is titled "Please read, it might make a difference" - no clue about WHAT "it" is, what "difference" might be made.

Is the post going to give insight about who will win this year's World Series? Or our next President? Or when we'll be out of Iraq? Who knows? It's just questionable melodrama like we see here all the time with no insight about the nature of the post. The only thing missing is the usual obligatory DU intro "OMG!"

[mmonk]

52. How about some clarity if you are trying to call someone out.

Otherwise, your post is worthless.

[Baby Snooks]

41. The monsters among us...

The sad reality is this is what our predatory society has produced in our quest to make men of boys so to speak.

We are either bullies or the bullied. Take your pick. We are either predator or prey. Up to you.

This same type of psychopathic behavior permeates our prison system here. The monsters among us. Right here. In this country. Not just in Afghanistan and Iraq and at Guantanamo.

This same type of psychopathic behavior is actually the "norm" in our society. We just don't want to accept it. Because to do so we have to accept that we have become the very thing we have always defended others against. Except in our own country. That's why so many object to "hate crimes" laws because on some unconscious level they believe some merely need to be put in their place in our society and be kept there.

We no longer lynch African-Americans but we still occasionally tie them to the back of a truck with a chain and drag them until they are decapitated. We love to hate. And don't want to accept that the act of hate itself should be a crime. As should be the actions borne of hatred.

We are not the country our founding fathers envisioned. They weep at what we have become.

[livefreest]

44. thanks. very important to know the distinction

[Little Star]

47. Solly quick question.....

is there an american press report stating obama and DOD had agreed to release 2000 additional photos?

I seem to remember it, but can't find a source other than the one you provided.

thank you so much. You have helped take a lot of confusion out of this.

[boston bean]

48. Little Star, here is a video of Jim Miklazewski saying they have been agreed to be released

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/30384586#30384586

can someone download and post to youtube before it disappears.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

58. Does it seem like NBC may have confused the two sets of photos as well.

Taguba has said that the set of 2000 photos contain sexual assaults and NBC is saying in that video that these 2000 pictures don't contain anything as bad as the Abu Ghraib photos, but that is obviously not the case if there are pictures of rapes. Or it is possible that they just don't know what is in the set of 2000 photos. It always struck me as strange that the White House said that the photos, (the 44 that the ACLU are getting) were "more of the same" but I am sure they always knew that in the 2000 set that sexual assaults were featured but chose not to make that public for whatever reason, and maybe there is good reason I am sure in their minds it is.

On edit: Or is it that the White House told NBC that the sets of 2000 don't contain anything as bad as the Abu Ghraib photos which is in conflict with what Taguba has stated. Who isn't telling the truth if that is the case?

[Solly Mack]

49. Yes

On the 2000 photos
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/us_world/NATLPentagon-to-Release-Photos-of-Prisoner-Abuse.html


http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/obama-adminis-3.html


The Pentagon was releasing both - the 44 (21/23) and the 2000 (since they had physical custody of the photos because the photos pertain to their CID investigations)......Obama said he changed his mind after talking with Generals downrange (Iraq/Afghanistan) And because Obama is the CinC and can reverse his decision to release the photos, the DOD also required his permission to release the 2000 photos to begin with - and when Obama reversed his decision on one, the other material was also included....Of course, the courts get the final say in the matter. (on the 44) No court has made a determination on the additional material (that I'm aware of) ....though the ACLU lawsuit is open to ALL material related to detainee abuse.

The 44 were ordered released by the courts - the 2000 were photos they just decided to release along with the 44.

and the actual letter from the DOD to the ACLU

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/letter_singh_20090423.pdf

In it talks of the 21/23 (44) photos related to the lawsuit AND the additional material from the CID investigations.(the 2000 photos)

The 2000 number itself , I think, comes from speculation (but probably based on the number of suspected photos still missing)...but they are 2 different sets...the 44...and the other material. And I think it helps if people understand that there are 2 sets in question.

I think of the 44 photos as what they are - ordered released by the court...and the other material as what would have been a goodwill gesture. If that makes sense. One set was ordered released...one was not....but in the end none were released.

[Little Star]

50. Thank you very much Solly! Do you think

Taguba is talking about pictures contained in the 2000 the DOD agreed to release? My assumption after reading Taguba's statement over at Salon is that there is some obsfucation going on over which photo's Gibbs was denying existed. Plausible deniability.

There could be any unknown number of photo's put into different "sets" and denials can be made about each set, unless one knows what was portrayed in each set. know what I'm trying to say?? It's like a shell game.

[Solly Mack]

51. I agree about it seeming like a shell game

and that's my concern. Too easy to just lose evidence when everyone is confused about what does and doesn't exist - and what is and isn't "new"....

I think there are more pictures than the 44/2000. That's why I like trying to keep it all straight. (they make it hard to keep straight)

I think Taguba was talking about the photos from his investigations that have yet to be released (in the Telegraph article and in Salon from today). And I think it is possible that the 2000/other material could contain the remaining Abu Ghraib pictures. But if that other material doesn't contain the remaining Abu Ghraib photos, then where are they?

Gibbs replied to the reporters by referring them back to the Pentagon/DOD statement. The Pentagon's statement seems to apply only to the 44 photos from the lawsuit - which means they are saying the 44 photos don't depict the torture/rape/sexual assault Taguba refers to (and we know that's true from the ACLU documents) - BUT...if the DOD's statement only applies to the 44 photos, then what does the other material contain? And does that material contain those photos?

I do think the DOD tailored their statement in a way that is disingenuous.

The Telegraph didn't help matters any by conflating the 2000 photos with the ACLU 44 photos.

So instead of addressing the Telegraph article point by point, the DOD's response was framed in terms of the ACLU photos. (so it seems to me)

The Telegraph article mentioned the 2000 photos, they also mention the ACLU lawsuit, but written in such a way that it lumps the 2000 photos as part of that lawsuit, and they quoted Taguba.

In the Salon article Taguba admits the one quote is accurate. He did say that. But the 2000 photos were not part of the 21/23 responsive photos from the lawsuit. So while the Telegraph article did contain some truths, it also contained inaccuracies ...and those inaccuracies were used to dismiss the complete article.

I think the DOD intentionally framed their statement in a away to not address the 2000/other material photos and keep the focus on the 44 photos....because they could honestly say the 44 photos don't match Taguba's quote.

The result being a lot of confusion... and the other material getting lost in the confusion.


In another reply (to this thread) with the subject heading "It really is", I go into more details. (with links)


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5743957&mesg_id=5746287

[PainPerdu]

59. Splitting hairs

In this day of multi-media, might the parsing of the term "photograps" leave out the possibilty of cell phone photo transimssions,or live streaming video that may not legally or tecnically be considered photograps,yet be visuals of additional torture?

[Patsy Stone]

53. Thank you

That is exactly what I wanted to know.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

60. Bump

[inna]

61. btw, the widely circulating rape photos are fake (thank god)....

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38505