More On The Alleged Rape Photos

The Daily Telegraph report yesterday about the possibility of photos showing rape at Abu Ghraib has lead bloggers to resurrect a 2004 quote from New Yorker writer Seymour Hersh alleging that photos or video of such an event existed. (A commenter mentions the Hersh quote in a recent Swampland thread, as does Zach Roth at TPM and Larisa Alexandrova, among others.)

But Alex Koppelman at Salon does the due diligence on that quote and points out that Hersh has since effectively retracted the claim. Koppelman writes:

It has since become clear that what Hersh said was inaccurate. In a 2005 article for New York Magazine in which he slammed Hersh for being careless about the factual basis for things he discussed in his speeches, rather than in his articles, Chris Suellentrop noted that Hersh’s book “Chain of Command” paints a very different picture. It read:

‘An attorney involved in the case told me in July 2004 that one of the witness statements he had read described the rape of a boy by a foreign contract employee who served as an interpreter at Abu Ghraib. In the statement, which had not been made public, the lawyer told me, a prisoner stated that he was a witness to the rape, and that a woman was taking pictures. The witness further stated, according to the lawyer, that “the kid was making a lot of noise.”‘

Hersh himself told Suellentrop, “I actually didn’t quite say what I wanted to say correctly. It wasn’t that inaccurate, but it was misstated. The next thing I know, it was all over the blogs. And I just realized then, the power of—and so you have to try and be more careful.”

Meanwhile, today at the Daily Beast, Scott Horton, the human rights lawyer, says he has been able to confirm the existence to the photos described by the Telegraph by speaking with “several reliable sources, including a highly credible senior military officer with firsthand knowledge.” [More after the jump.]

Horton goes on to describe the contents of some of these photos:

The photographs differ from those already officially released. Some show U.S. personnel engaged in sexual acts with prisoners and each other. In one, a female prisoner appears to have been forced to expose her breasts to be photographed. In another, a prisoner is suspended naked upside down from the top bunk of a bed in a stress position. . . .In one withheld photograph, not previously described, Specialist Charles A. Graner, Jr., an Abu Ghraib guard, is shown suturing the face of a prisoner, a reliable source tells The Daily Beast.

Horton seems to be describing images that have been published by news organizations, like Salon, as far back as 2006. The images of detainees exposing their breasts and a detainee hanging naked from a bed are also discussed in detail in the Abu Ghraib investigations, which have been released.  (News organizations have restrained from publishing the photos of consensual sexual behavior between U.S. soldiers.) Horton is wrong to say that there has been no previous description of photographs of Graner suturing the face of a prisoner. An incident fitting this description has been investigated and made public, as have the photographs. (The photos and explanations are here.)

None of this rules out the possibility of more horrific photographs that have not been disclosed. (Taguba has yet to be quoted in a published report since his comments to the Telegraph.) But as this story echoes around the Internet, mistatement and rumors are clearly getting ahead of the facts.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Audacity of Dope: Tales of a Toking Teenage Obama

    We knew Barack Obama smoked weed in high school because he wrote about it in his books. What we didn’t know until Buzzfeed posted these choice nuggets (I’m so sorry) from David Maraniss’s new book on the President’s younger years, is the giggle-worthy details of his “Choom Gang” lifestyle, which are right out of a buddy stoner flick. Obama and his friends drove around the lush Hawaii countryside, hot-boxing their VW bus and re-upping with a long-haired pizza-tossing dealer named Ray, who Obama thanked in his yearbook “for all the good times.”

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    Obama Stumbles? Why the President’s Right to Talk About Bain

    The meme of the day in journo-world is that President Obama has stumbled at the outset of the general election campaign. The evidence for this? Well, uh, there isn’t very much, really–except that a few Democrats have criticized his campaign’s attacks on Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital and that Obama’s fundraising is merely humongous, instead of obscenely humongous. The two phenomena are linked, of course: Obama isn’t getting the usual haul from Wall Street because he has outrageously–outrageously!–tried to regulate the bankers who did so much to crash the economy in 2008. The handful of Democrats squawking are people who either (a) get money from private equity firms or (b) have retired and joined Mondo Casino. But there is another side to this story:

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    What has the ACLU said about the photos? They after all are the ones suing for their release. Presumably they might have some knowlege of what it is they’ve requested. Parhaps a quick phone call would be in order.

  • michaelscherer

    Aclu does not know content of photos. I posted the description of what the photos contain, as described in a government filing, which ACLU sent me, at the end of the last blog post.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    Sorry, didn’t see the update.
    .
    Thanks

  • vastwastelander

    Ya know, I’m torn: on the one hand, I believe that sunshine is the best disinfectant, and that bringing all evidence forward is the only way to go in a free, open, and just society. On the other hand, I don’t think feeding the mass media torture-porn obsession is healthy, and showing hateful, vile images will only feed hateful, vile people. How about Obama releases the photos, but every time the Daily Telegraph prints one, someone flies Across the Pond and smacks the publisher in the mouth, I dunno, 20 to 30 times?

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    I think the key is that someone other than just the Pentagon and a few select members of the executive branch know what the photos contain.
    .
    Certainly the endless specualtion and suspicion is doing as much harm as releasing the photo’s might. And of course, there are ways to make their contents publicly known
    without splashing them all over front pages wordlwide.

  • ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©

    .
    On the other hand, I don’t think feeding the mass media torture-porn obsession is healthy…
    .
    As the mass media persists in calling it “enhanced interrogation techniques” (because it’s only torture when “they” do it), I question your premise.
    ~

  • Mitch Guthman

    Michael,

    If the government has no such photographs in its possession, then Mr. Gibbs and the relevant spokesman at the DOD should be able to say so without equivocation and without cutesy-pie clowning around. Why not ask them straight out whether the government has in its possession any photographs of sexual encounters between American forces (including contractors and CIA agents). Then you should ask about each specific picture—-does the government possess picture showing that conduct or conduct substantially similar?

    If you ask simple, direct questions and do not allow yourself to be distracted by childish “humor” then you should be able to elicit a simple denial as regards to each photograph described in these various articles. I think the problem here is that reporters are just asking for a “reaction” as opposed to trying to pin Gibbs and others down. Ask him to answer “Yes, such a photo exists” or “No, the government does not have a photograph such as was described in ________article neither does it have anything like it.”

    My experience as a trial lawyer tells me two things: (1) Anyone who can’t or won’t give a yes or no answer to this kind of questioning has something to hide and (2) If you can’t ask a series of good leading questions and follow them up properly, you should consider another profession.

    Why not call this clown up and ask him not for a “reaction” but for a specific denial as to each photograph? Get him on record as to each and every photo—that the government absolutely, positively has no such photo in its possession. If he says that, maybe then I’ll believe him. But if he can’t say it, then he’s been lying to the American people and he should be fired. So, call him up and see if he’ll answer yes or no to each picture described by in the Telegraph or by Scott Horton. Each one, specifically. See how that works.

  • Cliff

    Thanks for following up on this, MS.

  • greenlyfe

    I think we should step back and think about what photos HAVE been released; and they’re pretty darn outrageous. Now, what we have here, is that claims of rape and child rape are being in the photos. I don’t know enough about this; but these are not new allegations and from what I’ve read there has been a response to these issues. I think the Obama team has decided not to publish these photos b/c of the outcry that emerged from the graphic presentation of what occurred at Abu Gahrib. But what has happened; the imagination of people has concocted I think images that are far more horrific than the clearly undeniable horrors that are likely illustrated. The Obama administration should, therefore, revisit the idea of releasing these photos or barring that creating a commission to investigate what has occurred with the prisoners we’ve had over the last eight years and what has occurred on the intelligence front. I think this should be a panel with subpoena power and it should allow for individuals to plead the fifth and not cooperate. They should have access to all records and release not only a report but a simple statement of facts. I think that this panel should include at lease four reporters: Walter Pincus, Brett Hume, Bob Woodruff, Dana Priest, and Christina Amanpour come to mind quickly for me in addition to respected former officials like Scowcroft, Zbigniew Brezezinski, McGovern etc.

    *

    Clearly, however, the president can’t keep up the mantra of moving forward when each new controversy pulls him back. Far better to have a full accounting and deal with the political ramifications in one fell swoop. Plus, for the sake of history and knowledge, we need a full accounting of the aftermath of 9/11 as we did an accounting of how it occurred. JMHO.

  • sy2d

    What digby said:

    Be that as it may, the pertinent part of his comments are those before that, in which he says that there is nothing new in the photos and that they’ve all been investigated and properly dealt with. If these pictures are those which Horton describes — and which the military seems to be most anxious to withhold from the public — then he was either duped by the Pentagon or he was not being truthful with the public. Nobody can find a record of prosecutions for those crimes.
    *
    The Pentagon and the White House have been very, very clumsily denying this story, lashing out at the British Press and denying the pictures even exist. They have also explicitly said that the pictures do not depict anything other than what was already seen in the earlier pictures and then used that as an excuse for not releasing them. This does not add up.
    *
    I’m sympathetic to the idea that these particular pictures will inflame anti-American hatred. If they are what Horton says they are, they are of a magnitude worse than what we’ve seen already. But that also raises the question of cover-up of the crimes they depict. Either there’s nothing new, in which case the pictures should be released because the excuse that they would inflame the middle east is nonsense — or the pictures are far worse than what we’ve seen before in which case the administration has to come clean about what’s in them and what specific actions have been taken by the Pentagon. They can’t have it both ways.

    http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/

  • sy2d
  • vastwastelander

    ifthethunder – I take your point, and I actually think the semantic argument is one worth having (more so than “show us the pictures”). Mostly it makes me sick to think that the media vultures are hyping these images largely to sell product, and I don’t want the US government feeding the beast any more than they have to on this issue.

    Rational adults can develop definitions for “torture,” “enhanced interrogation,” etc., but the actual photos will only cause problems . . . and Lord knows we’ve got enough of those.

  • shepherdwong

    Don’t be confused by this stupid debate. Other than the fact that the Obama Administration is now engaged in a cover-up of evidence of war crimes, whether or not these photos actually show rape is a complete non-story. The existing, published photo evidence and testimony is conclusive that we’ve raped, tortured, terrorized and murdered innocent people for political purposes – for revenge for 9/11 and to provide evidence to justify an illegal and unnecessary war (war crimes to justify other war crimes). Those are the facts that the Village would love to obscure with any tangential matters they can flog.
    .
    The specific content of one particular batch of photos only matters in terms of it’s political effects, including creating more Muslim outrage. That’s why they burned the torture tapes, not because they revealed something we didn’t already know about.

  • stuartzechman
  • http://www.nfmpolitico.com/2009/05/29/remainders-word-choice/ Remainders: Word choice

    [...] Scherer pokes a hole or two in the Telegraph’s story. [...]

  • michtom

    Here is the original Hersh quote:
    Some of the worst things that happened you don’t know about, okay? Videos, um, there are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib … The women were passing messages out saying ‘Please come and kill me, because of what’s happened’ and basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It’s going to come out.”

    Here is what he said in his book:
    ‘An attorney involved in the case told me in July 2004 that one of the witness statements he had read described the rape of a boy by a foreign contract employee who served as an interpreter at Abu Ghraib. In the statement, which had not been made public, the lawyer told me, a prisoner stated that he was a witness to the rape, and that a woman was taking pictures. The witness further stated, according to the lawyer, that “the kid was making a lot of noise.”‘

    That second doesn’t put the lie to the first. And Hersh said to Suellentrop, “I actually didn’t quite say what I wanted to say correctly. It wasn’t that inaccurate, but it was misstated.

    The operative statement is “It wasn’t that inaccurate.”

    In the quote from his speech, he has more than in the book, but there is nothing in the book that inherently contradicts what he said at his talk.

    How is this: “Hersh has since effectively retracted the claim,” justified?

  • http://aroundthesphere.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/taguba-the-telegraph-and-torture/ Taguba, The Telegraph and Torture « Around The Sphere

    [...] A response to the Daily Beast and others from Scherer, who also links to Alex Koppelman at Salon. Scherer: Horton seems to be describing images that have [...]

  • http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/09/25/british-insecurity-wire-gordon-brown-gets-his-bilat/ British Insecurity Wire: Gordon Brown Gets His Bilat! – Swampland – TIME.com

    [...] talks with President Obama all the time. But, if you believe the British press, and that is a big if, he really wanted to "talk" with President Obama this week, as in a formal, sit-down, diplomatic, [...]

blog comments powered by Disqus