torturedlogic - Jezebel

posts about #torturedlogic more →
Administration Denies Reports That Abu Ghraib Photos Depict Rape

Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

Dsmvwl Admin Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×

RoseColette (fewer thorns; more coffee)
05/28/09

In reply to Administration Denies Reports That Abu Ghraib Photos Depict Rape
I'll quote Larisa Alexandrovna over at at-Largely:

Salon published many of the sexual abuse in 2006 as did CBS. So if there are photos worse than the ones we have seen already, then God help us.

I am in the Do Not Show camp. I don't care if the faces are blurred or blacked out or what-have-you. There comes a point in time when we have to realize that the Need to Know does not give us the right to impose our will on others. Releasing the pictures to the public for their viewing "pleasure" is akin to raping the victims all over again. Honestly, do we need to see it Kodak to believe it happened? (To the Administration: Deny it all you want; we know better.)

[www.atlargely.com]
Reply

clevernamehere
05/28/09

In reply to Administration Denies Reports That Abu Ghraib Photos Depict Rape
For all the people who are pro the pictures being published (with or without faces), would you be okay with them being published without your consent if it was you?

One of the definitions of pornography is whether or not it appeals to prurient (a morbid, degrading and unhealthy interest in sex). Publishing these photos sounds prurient to me and really, it is just unnecessary for anyone outside of the military or the Hague to see them.
Reply

clevernamehere was starred clevernamehere was unstarred

Newsgirl
05/28/09

@clevernamehere: If I were a war prisoner, and I was treated this way by a U.S. soldier (or any soldier for that matter) who is supposed to be defending rights and standing for freedom in a war on terrorism, but who is instead using sex as a weapon...

Yes. Yes I would. And I would tell my story to as many reporters as would listen.

Again I think it's not appropriate to compare the alleged sex acts in these photos (alleged because we haven't seen them) to an average sexual assult. There are big differences.
Reply

Newsgirl was starred Newsgirl was unstarred

clevernamehere
05/28/09

@Leslie: If one of the victims steps up, then I'm fine with the photos being shown. Just like how we keep sexual abuse victim's names out of the press unless they step up. But I don't think who committed the acts should affect the victim's rights.

Where would that stop? What if a congressman was accused of raping his a constitute? Is that now fair game? What about the CEO of a major company? The line should be fixed, not based on how interesting the public would find the photos.
Reply

clevernamehere was starred clevernamehere was unstarred

Newsgirl
05/28/09

@clevernamehere: The line has less to do with how interesting the public would find the photos and more to do with the public nature of the perpetrator, in my opinion. A Congressman raping a constituent is absolutely public information, as members of congress are paid for by tax dollars, elected by the public, and hold public office. Their actions are public. I also feel soldiers are held to a different standard of conduct and a different standard of publicity than your average John Doe who may assault/sexually assault someone.

A CEO of a major company? CEOs are private citizens, not paid for or salaried by the taxpayers.
Reply

Newsgirl was starred Newsgirl was unstarred

clevernamehere
05/28/09

@Leslie: You're totally missing the point- the issue isn't the assailant, it is the victim. You're saying that if someone is unlucky enough to be assaulted by a government employee they lose the right to conceal photos of the assault. I find that unbelievably heartless and selfish. Its about protecting the victim, not your morbid curiosity. Descriptions of the act are enough to shame the perpetrators.

And a lot of CEOs are quasi government employees with the bailout.
Reply

clevernamehere was starred clevernamehere was unstarred

Newsgirl
05/29/09

@clevernamehere: I'm not missing the point at all here, I understand everyone's concerns about victim's rights. I've said several times in this post and others on this thread that I understand the importance of victims rights, that I know that coupled with security is a huge issue. And I won't restate my opinion again, because, well, that'd just be pointless. And it's really inappropriate of you to accuse me of having a "morbid curiosity" as if I just want to see the photos to get a thrill. That's baseless, and sad that your response to a differing opinion is an attacking one.
Reply

Newsgirl was starred Newsgirl was unstarred

lalaland13
05/28/09

In reply to Administration Denies Reports That Abu Ghraib Photos Depict Rape
Oh lord. I was pretty pissed at Barack for not releasing them, but I can see why-although if this is right, I wish the administration wouldn't deny it and would say something about how this will further perpetuate the suffering of those being victimized in the pics. Because I agree with that.

I'm in media and I don't think these should be in the paper. Maybe let the press or someone convey just how bad the pics are without printing them, but if an envelope of them came to me, I don't know if I could bear looking at them.

Regardless of what is or isn't presented, I want these people prosecuted. And I want to know how they're being prosecuted. We have the right to that, I would think.
Reply

lalaland13 was starred lalaland13 was unstarred

stacyinbean
05/28/09

In reply to Administration Denies Reports That Abu Ghraib Photos Depict Rape
I'm sorry but the only people who would be titillated by this photos would be completely sick fucks, of which I know assume Susannah Breslin is one. There is NOTHING titillating about rape and torture unless you have serious, serious mental health issues. And are able to separate yourself from humanity and see other humans as less than human, which makes you even more disgusting. Ugh. This whole thing makes my stomach churn, WHY is this necessary and don't these people understand that things like this CREATE terrorists, not break them down?
Reply

stacyinbean was starred stacyinbean was unstarred

stacyinbean
05/28/09

@stacyinbean: That is a hot spelling and grammar mess. Whoops!
Reply

stacyinbean was starred stacyinbean was unstarred

dirtybee
05/28/09

In reply to Administration Denies Reports That Abu Ghraib Photos Depict Rape
"The denotation of the quotations, in this case, is to indicate that it wasn't rape, in much the same way that I refer to the criminal "justice" system when talking about sexual assault cases."

Fucking SNAP!
Reply

dirtybee was starred dirtybee was unstarred

mariamariamaria
05/28/09

In reply to Administration Denies Reports That Abu Ghraib Photos Depict Rape
I think we've found the ever elusive definition of obscene. I would classify these pictures, the acts they capture and the reasoning behind them as obscene.
Reply

mariamariamaria was starred mariamariamaria was unstarred

mariamariamaria
05/28/09

@mariamariamaria: Ah, but I got ahead of myself. I think one of the "requirements" of the definition is "intentionally prurient" so I think I'm wrong. Horrifying, shaming, sick and disgusting yes, but prurient would put me in the Bresling camp and um, no.
Reply

mariamariamaria was starred mariamariamaria was unstarred

annelise13
05/28/09

In reply to Administration Denies Reports That Abu Ghraib Photos Depict Rape
From reading elsewhere, I've seen one photo as describing the molestation of a boy aged 15-18. So publication of the photos potentially wanders into child pornography law territory.

As for whether any/all of this might be porn, well, wasn't there a story just last week about a photo of a child "breastfeeding" her doll accused of the same thing? That's the society we're living in right now.
Reply

annelise13 was starred annelise13 was unstarred

RainbowBrite
05/28/09

@annelise13: OMG - I just posted above saying that I, too, heard that the photo was of sexual abuse of a minor. A friend from the ACLU told me.

It just gets worse and worse...
Reply

RainbowBrite was starred RainbowBrite was unstarred

Vivelafat says Sweep the leg, Johnny.
05/28/09

In reply to Administration Denies Reports That Abu Ghraib Photos Depict Rape
So, do we all seem to be think that pictures depicting sexual acts do, in fact, exist and Obama is lying to us? I'm uncomfortable with that Mr. President.
Reply

RainbowBrite
05/28/09

@Vivelafat says Sweep the leg, Johnny.: I have a friend who worked at the ACLU back in 2005. She told me the org was pushing for the release of pictures from Guantanamo of detainees being sexually abused, and some of those detainees were under the age of 18. I was absolutely horrified, but thought maybe they were mistaken about the content of the images.

Then 4 years later the exact issue comes up again...

So I'm afraid that it is most likely real.
Reply

RainbowBrite was starred RainbowBrite was unstarred

ccchild
05/28/09

In reply to Administration Denies Reports That Abu Ghraib Photos Depict Rape
So, is our President lying to us when he says that the pictures don't depict sexual assaults? Of course, if it were Bush, I'd think yes, immediately. But Obama was supposed to be better than that. Maybe he's not, though.
Reply

ccchild was starred ccchild was unstarred

Shamrockette
05/28/09

@ccchild: But this has to do with his Administration, not Obama himself. But I wouldn't know. It's possible he didn't permit them being exposed.
Reply

Shamrockette was starred Shamrockette was unstarred

Shamrockette
05/28/09

In reply to Administration Denies Reports That Abu Ghraib Photos Depict Rape
If they want to attack this major violation of human rights dead on, why can't they blur out the faces of the victims? That way, they can keep their privacy, yet also give evidence for the disgusting treatment they endure.

Maybe it's just wishful thinking, but something has to be done, regardless of the circumstances.
Reply

Shamrockette was starred Shamrockette was unstarred

Notes from the underwhelmed
05/28/09

@Shamrockette is stickin' to it!: Exactly. They just don't want the pictures released because they don't want to "rapist shame" the soldiers or Amurrica.
Reply

Shamrockette
05/28/09

@Notes from the underwhelmed: But these soldiers know better, so they deserve to be shamed. But any rational person will realize that not all American soldiers are like this.
Reply

Shamrockette was starred Shamrockette was unstarred

Political Party Girl
05/28/09

In reply to Administration Denies Reports That Abu Ghraib Photos Depict Rape
And on a calmer, more rational note: Can't we, say, blur out the faces of the detainees? Anyone who's ever seen "classified" documents released knows that large sections are often blacked out for security's sake. How would photos be any different?
Reply

lilbobbytables
05/28/09

@Political Party Girl: I admit that I am in the "do not release" camp, and I have two issues with blurring out the faces in the pictures:

1. The victims might have other identifiable features; and

2. Even if no one knew who the victim was in a blurred photo, he or she would know, and that could still be horribly damaging.

If the victims gave consent to the widespread release of the photographs, that would be one thing (although still not porn, Breslin!), but otherwise I think it would cause more harm than good.
Reply

lilbobbytables was starred lilbobbytables was unstarred

Political Party Girl
05/28/09

@lilbobbytables: I'm not necessarily pro-releasing the photos. I do, however, believe that the ACLU will eventually win the FOIA suit, so the publication of photos is likely. I also think Obama (in a politically savvy move) reversed his position so that when the photos are released by court order, Obama can say he tried to protect the troops. So if the photos are released, I'd hope we could at least limit the additional damage inflicted on the detainees by at least blurring their faces. Now that I think about it, I'm fairly certain the gov't at least put black bars over the eyes of the detainees in the photos released in 2006.
Reply

clevernamehere
05/28/09

In reply to Administration Denies Reports That Abu Ghraib Photos Depict Rape
Are there people out there who got turned on at the naked photos of women at Auschwitz? If there are, I think we can use a stronger word than "Un-PC" for those feelings.

I don't think these photos belong in the press. It makes the press culpable for sexual abuse to publish pictures of sexual abuse taken under duress and published without consent.
Reply

clevernamehere was starred clevernamehere was unstarred

Newsgirl
05/28/09

@clevernamehere: It makes the press culpable for sexual abuse to publish pictures of sexual abuse taken under duress and published without consent.

I think that's a very, very huge stretch to hold the press guilty of sexual abuse should these be published. And my question on consent would be - who do the pictures really belong to? Who would really have to give consent?
Reply

Newsgirl was starred Newsgirl was unstarred

JerseyGrrrl
05/28/09

@clevernamehere: I agree with Leslie that you're making a pretty big leap in implicating the press. First of all, even if the photos were released, I'd be very surprised if the worst of them ended up in the papers or on the news. Most journalists are very aware of their audiences and the fine line between informing and being tawdry or opportunist.

Certainly, if the photos are released, anyone interested in seeing them all will be able to find them on the web. But they will certainly not all be in newspapers. And publishing a story about something makes the press an observer, not a conspirator. By informing the public, they are doing nothing if not helping hold those accountable, well, accountable.

@KiddyKat: That's an interesting point about this influencing future coverage of rape. I think that so much coverage has been done on rape as war crime that is completely separate from rapes that are not war-related. And none of this coverage has involved pictures of rapes occurring as a means of story-telling. I think we could still expect this degree sensitivity to continue.

DISCLOSURE: I work in media, and studied journalism and ethics in school, so I'm quite interested in this as a result.
Reply

JerseyGrrrl was starred JerseyGrrrl was unstarred

clevernamehere
05/28/09

@Leslie: I think most people would feel violated if pictures of their sexual assault were splashed across newspapers, even if their face was obscured.

We don't have to see things to understand them and we don't have the right to see everything. Its basic human decency to keep these photos unpublished, the descriptions are enough.
Reply

clevernamehere was starred clevernamehere was unstarred

Newsgirl
05/28/09

@clevernamehere: "most people would feel violated if pictures of their sexual assault were splashed across newspapers..."

But are these photos really on the same level of "most people"'s sexual assaults? These photos depict soldiers doing the act. A tax-paid U.S> soldier using sex as a weapon in a war on terrorism is quite a different charge, in my opinion, than an average sexual assault case. And I believe soldiers are to be held to a different privacy standard in these cases, especially when their actions may impact a war.
Reply

Newsgirl was starred Newsgirl was unstarred

Benevolent_Dictatrix (patently absurd)
05/28/09

@Leslie: So when the perpetrator is a US soldier, the victim's rights become less important? I really don't see the logic in that.
Reply

Newsgirl
05/28/09

@Benevolent_Dictatrix (patently absurd): That's fine if you don't see the logic in it, but I certainly do. There is a difference.
Reply

Newsgirl was starred Newsgirl was unstarred

RoseColette (fewer thorns; more coffee)
05/28/09

@Leslie: Yes. Sexual assault is sexual assault regardless of the perp, the location, and the situation. Abuse is abuse regardless of age, sex, gender, and orientation. We know prisoners are abused -- it happens in our own prisons by guards funded by taxpayers. We know sexual assault happens in the military. We don't need to see the pics to call it what it is -- abuse of power, rape, sexual assault.
Reply

Newsgirl
05/28/09

@Leslie: @Benevolent_Dictatrix (patently absurd): And I guess I need to again clarify that the reason I think these SHOULD be released is because of the perpetrator. While I understand concerns over victims rights issues, I think the value of public knowledge of what our soliders are doing is more important. We can simply agree to disagree.
Reply

Newsgirl was starred Newsgirl was unstarred

Newsgirl
05/28/09

@RoseColette (fewer thorns; more coffee): "We don't need to see the pics to call it what it is -- abuse of power, rape, sexual assault."

We don't know that it is in fact rape or sexual assault, though. That's another issue in this. What we know about these photos is based on what government officials or military officials are telling us, which I personally don't think is enough. I think the pictures should be judged in the court of public opinion.
Reply

Newsgirl was starred Newsgirl was unstarred

stacyinbean
05/28/09

@Leslie: But a lot of the photos HAVE been released, two or three years ago, and it's pretty obvious there is assault happening.
Reply

stacyinbean was starred stacyinbean was unstarred

Newsgirl
05/28/09

@stacyinbean: I didn't say the already released photos don't show assault. They certainly do.

And I guess I should go back again and say that while I do understand the value of victim privacy and the effects releasing more photos would have on victims, I still think the public deserves to see the photos to judge for themselves what our soldiers are doing.
Reply

Newsgirl was starred Newsgirl was unstarred

Newsgirl
05/28/09

@Leslie: And I'll also add that I'm a journalist, and that's a large part of why I see such an enormous public information value in the need to release the photos.
Reply

Newsgirl was starred Newsgirl was unstarred

clevernamehere
05/28/09

@JerseyGrrrl: I'm not saying legally guilty, but morally guilty. We can be informed without releasing the pictures. Journalists could be allowed to see them without getting to take them with them or publish them.

@Leslie: We don't need to see the photos to know what went on.
Reply

clevernamehere was starred clevernamehere was unstarred

Newsgirl
05/28/09

In reply to Administration Denies Reports That Abu Ghraib Photos Depict Rape
I'll be honest, I'm struggling with this. Personally, I really think the privacy of the victims and the danger to our troops and the British troops are important reasons to keep the pictures hidden. But, another side of me keeps pushing me to think that releasing the photos will show some of the effects of war, which is something I believe the public needs to know. This is the same reason I was so glad the Pentagon decided to lift the ban on reporters photographing arriving caskets of dead American soliders. It's something that happens in war. It's a reality. And I'm just conflicted in my opinion on it.
Reply

Newsgirl was starred Newsgirl was unstarred

Lymed
05/28/09

@Leslie: You can have public discourse and detailed descriptions of the photographs without actually showing the photographs. It is the fact that the act was meant to humiliate that keeps me from wanting to have the photographs public. Because then it just takes the act further, by further humiliating the victim. Even if you can't see the victim's face, if that victim ever sees the photo, the victim will be humiliated.
Reply

Lymed was starred Lymed was unstarred

Newsgirl
05/28/09

@Lymed has a Mr. Lymed: My only issue with only releasing descriptions is how open and loosely people can decide to interpret and release their descriptions. Having the photos out is really, in the end, the only way for the public to know first hand what actually happened and what those photos are actually depicting. Taking the government's description of these photos at face value would be dangerous.
Reply

Newsgirl was starred Newsgirl was unstarred

RainbowBrite
05/28/09

@Leslie: I know, it's such a double edged sword though! Photographs are so powerful and will make a stronger impact on Americans viewing them. We need to know exactly what our government did to people in the name of our freedom, and we need to get angry about it.

But at the same time, photographs are so powerful that it could provoke people to flip the fuck out around the world. I don't want people to start riots (like the Mohammed cartoons) or give the Taliban another recruiting tool.

It's hard to decide which is more important...
Reply

RainbowBrite was starred RainbowBrite was unstarred

MissyMcCLung
05/28/09

@Leslie: IO think the photos should be released in such a way as to obscure the identity of all involved ONE DAY. Not today, not while people are still fighting over there, not while the conflict is still fresh and painful in people's minds. I truly believe it will not help anyone acheive peace, which is what I want.

HOWEVER, I do think the political leaders and troop comanders should be forced to look at the images. Before making any policy decisions regarding this war they need all information.
Reply

MissyMcCLung was starred MissyMcCLung was unstarred

Newsgirl
05/28/09

@MissyMcCLung: That's a really great point about the need for political leaders and those commanding the troops to see these.
Reply

Newsgirl was starred Newsgirl was unstarred

Political Party Girl
05/28/09

In reply to Administration Denies Reports That Abu Ghraib Photos Depict Rape
So I'm a porn star now because some asshole took pictures while I was being sexually assaulted? SWEET.
Reply

A Small Turnip
05/28/09

In reply to Administration Denies Reports That Abu Ghraib Photos Depict Rape
They need to release those photographs. Obscure the faces of the victims (and hell, even the perpetrators if you must), but it is a significantly bad idea to let the speculation run rampant like this.

What, you don't think terrorists and terrorists manqué already have a good idea of what's going on in these pictures? The fact that they exist at all is a mobilizing force. Releasing them really isn't going to change a hell of a lot of minds that haven't already been convinced.

It's got to be done. Part of being a grown-up is owning up to your mistakes. And part of being a grown-up in government is realising that sometimes good PR just isn't a luxury available to you anymore. The damage has already been done. Time to draw a line.
Reply

A Small Turnip was starred A Small Turnip was unstarred

Newsgirl
05/28/09

@ASmallTurnip: It's got to be done. Part of being a grown-up is owning up to your mistakes. And part of being a grown-up in government is realising that sometimes good PR just isn't a luxury available to you anymore. The damage has already been done. Time to draw a line.

Agreed.
Reply

Newsgirl was starred Newsgirl was unstarred

Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

#torturedlogic

Jezebel

SUBSCRIBE TO Jezebel

Administration Denies Reports That Abu Ghraib Photos Depict Rape

Login

Reset Password

Register

Submit Your Comment