Unreleased Torture Photos "Show Rape." Why No Prosecution?
| Thu May. 28, 2009 7:03 AM PDT
Two weeks ago, President Barack Obama abruptly changed course and refused to release photos that allegedly show American servicemen and servicewomen torturing detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now we have a better sense of exactly how horrible those photos might be. Major General Antonio Taguba, who was in charge of investigating the abuses at Abu Ghraib, told the British paper the Telegraph that the photos "show rape" of prisoners by Americans:
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.
Gen. Taguba says he supports President Obama's decision to withold the photos, arguing that "The mere description of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it." Fine—the debate over whether to release the photos is legitimate. I have a more immediate question. If the government is in possession of photographic evidence of an American soldier raping someone, has that soldier been prosecuted? The relevant section of the Uniform Code of Military Justice is here:
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who commits an act of sexual intercourse with a female not his wife, by force and without consent, is guilty of rape and shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
It would take a pretty incompetent prosecution to fail to convict someone of a rape for which there is clear photographic evidence. But I can't find any public reference to such a court martial, let alone a conviction. Earlier this month, ex-soldier Steven Green was convicted for raping and killing an Iraqi girl and killing her family, but that pretty clearly didn't happen in prison, and there's no mention of photographic evidence of it. So either the photos don't show what Taguba says they show, or there's something else going on here. People not identifiable in the photos, maybe? I'm looking into this.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
Exactly
Submitted by Clara Jeffery on Thu May. 28, 2009 8:28 AM PDT.
Good point Nick: And this is the most compelling argument for releasing the photos; public opinion would then cry out for prosecution. I admit I'm torn, because I do think that if the photos are anywhere near as bad as the Telegraph implies, publication could lead to a lot more violence. But it's only defensible to not release them if the appropriate parties are punished for any acts of abuse. Otherwise: coverup.
It's also disturbing to me
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu May. 28, 2009 9:55 AM PDT.
It's also disturbing to me that Obama previously said the photos were "not particularly sensational" compared to photos from Abu Ghraib. Those photos were horrifying, yes, and showed despicable acts of cruelty - but how can he say that photos showing penetrative rape are not "sensational"? Some people argued that the other photos were not showing criminal behavior, but no one with two brain cells to rub together could say that about these...it's upsetting that Obama seems not to see it that way.
Gen. Taguba says he supports
Submitted by CAMMMO.org on Thu May. 28, 2009 10:54 AM PDT.
Gen. Taguba says he supports President Obama's decision to withold the photos, arguing that "The mere description of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it."
Doesn't this seem like an extremely inappropriate time for anyone in the government to be asking any civilian to "take their word" for anything?
Andrew
CAMMMO.org Membership
admin@CAMMMO.org
A compromise
Submitted by BigRichard on Thu May. 28, 2009 5:58 PM PDT.
I find the wording of the Telegraph article to be rather odd with respect to how they cite Taguba. Taking it a face value, however, I'd suggest the following compromise: release a picture-by-picture summary (with date and place and explicit narrative) but not the pictures themselves. That should be adequate to let the public know the magnitude of the problem and to verify that justice is obtained.
R
"With a female not his wife"?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri May. 29, 2009 5:40 AM PDT.
Am I the only one troubled by the fact that the Uniform Code of Military Justice thinks it's no big deal for soldiers to have sex with their wives by force and without consent?
Didn't we all get justifiably mad when Afghanistan proposed a similar law recently?
rape of a young male teen, approx. 16 years old, at Abu Ghraib
Submitted by Mark Kraft (not verified) on Fri May. 29, 2009 6:19 AM PDT.
We actually do know, in one case, why there's been no conviction for rape.
I am referring to the rape and photographs taken of an approximately 16-year-old Iraqi male in Abu Ghraib prison. It was written up as part of the Taguba Report, but it wasn't part of the report that was made public. It was, however, leaked to the press. (.pdf) NPR reported it as their headline story for Marketplace, on May 21, 2004. (RealPlayer)
"I saw the translator . . . f*cking a kid. His age would have been about 15 to 18 years. The kid was hurting very bad, and they covered all the doors with sheets. Then when I heard the screaming, I climbed to the door because on top it wasn't covered. And i saw (the translator) who was wearing a military uniform, putting his dick in the little kid's ass. I couldn't see the face of the kid because his face wasn't in front of the door. And the female soldier was taking pictures."
Amongst the documents released to the ACLU was a report about the rape of the teen(.pdf), which makes it pretty clear that no investigation occurred -- or was allowed -- until over four months had passed, by which point all the prisoners, soldiers, and contractors had moved on. Most damningly, this investigation didn't occur until well after Abu Ghraib became a household name.
The rapist was a private contractor for Titan Corp. in SoCal. Indeed, one of the reasons we may not have heard more of this is that the military laws at the time in Iraq grants immunity for the contractor who raped the kid in question.
In other words, a pedophile walks among us, untouchable for his crimes.
This, of course, is not something that the military would like to admit to, much less have photographic evidence supporting.
The Horror, The Horror, The Horror
Submitted by Bella (not verified) on Sat May. 30, 2009 4:35 AM PDT.
The movie that will eventually be made about these incidents will seem like a cross between "Apocalypse Now", "Where the Buffalo Roam" and "All the Presidents Men" with Pedophiles instead of Druggies. Of course I personally have No Desire to watch such a movie even though I think it inevitable that it be made.
I am still reeling over the notion that our government would use rape as a tactic. This angers me to the point I want to see the perps publicly humiliated, the higher the rank the more outre' the humiliation. I now understand why Obama doesn't wish to have them released, they are likely too obscene and he possibly feels as offended by the revelation of the images as I do.
What humiliation could be sufficient to atone for such egregious behaviors? I don't have a yardstick to measure how offended I am, but I am certain it should involve the substance now known as "santorum" in mass quantity..
I Beg Our President to Act
Submitted by kennardbjayers on Sat May. 30, 2009 2:39 PM PDT.
Soldiers and Contractors who torture, rape and kill, political leaders who trash the Constitution, and Government agents the supposedly lie to Congress. When will action be taken to prosecute these people? I support our President and hold my head high that our nation has elected a very capable man as our first black President. This is progress! But, we must not turn our back on the despicable violations of our constitution and laws. I hear that the President may want to avoid attention being drawn away from healthcare and other agenda items the President wants addressed, but is this to say we cannot respond to the crimes and the agenda items at the same time? We need to be able to take care of many problems at the same time. The President needs to delegate authority to get it all done at the same time. We cannot let terrible things go for the sake of our agenda of other things that need to happen too. When I read a teenage boy is raped when in the custody of our military while a female personnel takes pictures it turns my stomach. We just cannot let it go without action being taken. If we let it go, then we are all accomplices to this heinous crime and the other crimes that have taken place.
Kennard Ayers,
Baltimore, Maryland USA
rape as a weapon of war...
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat May. 30, 2009 6:15 PM PDT.
That President Obama does not want to inflame public opinion by publishing the pictures makes sense to me,however if these things did in fact take place,then not punishing the perpetrators ,serves to shove things under the rug and to tar every American citizen as complicit...justice needs to be seen to be done.
Are you kidding me?! "If"
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Jun. 8, 2009 2:19 PM PDT.
Are you kidding me?! "If" these rapes happened? Rape has been used throughout the ages to denigrate, humiliate, & punish the "losers" of wars. Get with it!
The perpetrators should be locked in a room with a violent sex offender for at least 24 hours, and John Waters should take pictures. Even he couldn't stomach something like rape.
release of rape photos
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun Jun. 7, 2009 1:09 PM PDT.
america is the beacon of what in the world? obama is just one more tool of the
corps. this elction cost 750 million and their going to get their money's worth!
you elect someone from the university of chicago that freak house thats what
you get. we have truly lost our way!
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
