Important, Please Read — That's the header on an email sent out to the press today by Robert Gibbs,

[Pirate Smile]

Important, Please Read — That's the header on an email sent out to the press today by Robert Gibbs, pointing them to yesterday's Salon interview with Retired Army Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, who denied he was referring to the 44 photos Obama is fighting to keep secret when he told the Telegraph "These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency."
Taguba told the website that he was referring to the hundreds of pictures he did review as the lead investigator into the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal, but not the 44 shots that are the subject of the ACLU lawsuit the administration is fighting. Gibbs' full note is after the jump.

From White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs

A number of you have asked about or reported on a recent article in the Telegraph that inaccurately described photos which are the subject of an ongoing lawsuit. Both the Department of Defense and the White House have said the article was wrong, and now the individual who was purported to be the source of the article has said it’s inaccurate. Given that this false report has been repeated around the world, and given the impact these negative reports have on our troops, I felt it was important for you to see this correction.

- Robert Gibbs



http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/05/30/taguba/print.html


Taguba denies he's seen abuse photos suppressed by Obama

The general told a U.K. paper about images he saw investigating Abu Ghraib -- not photos Obama wants kept secret.

By Mark Benjamin

May. 30, 2009 |

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba denied reports that he has seen the prisoner-abuse photos that President Obama is fighting to keep secret, in an exclusive interview with Salon Friday night.

On Thursday an article in the Daily Telegraph reported that Taguba, the lead investigator into Abu Ghraib abuse, had seen images Obama wanted suppressed, and supported the president's decision to fight their release. The paper quoted Taguba as saying, "These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency."

But Taguba says he wasn't talking about the 44 photographs that are the subject of an ongoing ACLU lawsuit that Obama is fighting.

"The photographs in that lawsuit, I have not seen," Taguba told Salon Friday night. The actual quote in the Telegraph was accurate, Taguba said -- but he was referring to the hundreds of images he reviewed as an investigator of the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq -- not the photos of abuse that Obama is seeking to suppress.

In March 2006 Salon published "The Abu Ghraib Files," 279 photographs and 19 videos collected by the Army's Criminal Investigation Division as it examined the shocking cases of prisoner abuse at the notorious Baghdad prison. The photos depict scenes of extreme cruelty – prisoners forced to publicly masturbate, naked prisoners held in extreme stress positions, or being walked naked by a female guard. Some photos show prisoners bloodied and otherwise injured, with untrained guards tending to their wounds.

Several news organizations have described some of those same images as among the ones Obama is seeking to suppress, when in fact, they've already been published by Salon.

Taguba says the Telegraph story got one important fact right: He said he does support Obama's decision to fight the release of the images subject to the lawsuit, even though he has not seen those images. "No other photographs should be released," Taguba told Salon, because he worries additional images might threaten the safety of U.S. troops.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/wbarchive/whiteboard05302009.html

[Whoa_Nelly]

1. Time to release those photos

Time to use them to bring criminal charges on the Bush Cabal and all those involved.

Dammit!
To be recognized as a nation that will NOT condone torture, then the present administration and justices need to stop the fuck condoning it! :grr:

[jkshaw]

2. Thery're not condoning it, Nelly

But they're concealing some of it. I agree they should all be released.

[Whoa_Nelly]

6. I consider it condoning the Bush torture policy

when they are pushing to hide the Bush torture legacy.

It becomes considered condonation by seeking omission of what was done in our name.

[lamp_shade]

3. Good for Gibbsy. He took quite a bit of heat from the Telegraph for questioning their report.

He was right.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. If the photos are as benign as the White House alleges...why not release them?

If they aren't as bad as the Abu-Ghraib photos then the argument falls apart that they would cause bad feelings about the perpetrators.

[rateyes]

5. The reason for not releasing those photos, IMO, is to keep down

the outrage here in the US. If they release them, there would be NO WAY to justify not prosecuting the bastards who ordered it.

[snowdays]

20. I think you are right about that.

[noise]

7. Oh right

This story is outrageous because the Daily Telegraph was referencing the wrong torture photos.

Gibbs is as arrogant as any Bush administration press secretaries.

[BuyingThyme]

8. Yep.

[cherokeeprogressive]

9. He wouldn't be Press Secretary if he wasn't. n/t

[Jennicut]

10. No because they said the administration and Pentagon was lying, it was not

Gibbs pointed this out.
I want all the photos out too, but the facts need to be straight here.

[noise]

12. It's an effort to distract

with the White House calling out the Daily Telegraph while the more important issue of torture photos is downplayed.

We have an FBI agent (Ali Soufan) under oath stating that:

1) Legal interrogation methods were working.

2) The torture program didn't work as advertised.

We are being told by Cheney that:

1) Police state tactics are required to prevent terrorist attacks.

2) Torture was a good faith effort to prevent terrorist attacks.

I don't see how the Daily Telegraph's poor reporting takes precedence over the sick justification for the torture program.

[Jennicut]

23. Its a distraction that the Daily Telegraph even finds that important while Bush

and Cheney are not reported on and yet the Obama WH is called a liar. See how that works? Blame the Dems, blame the Dems, blame the Dems. Pelosi was but a small part in the torture fiasco and yet what did the MSM concentrate on last week? Pelosi and what she knew. The bastards think they are sneaky but its evident what they try to do. Shift the blame on the Dems, get the heat off of themselves. If the Dems did it, its okay for us!
Its a conservative newspaper...kind of obvious.
I want the photos to be released. I understand why Obama thinks it would hurt the troops but the truth needs to be out there. However, I am not naive in thinking that the MSM does not have an agenda.

[glitch]

27. It's nit harvest time in DC, and Gibbs is up to the job!

Bad, meet worse.

[DCKit]

28. Just as it's not important that torture, rape and murder occured...

but, instead, "What did Nancy Pelosi know, and when did she know it?"

It's the wrong argument, and too many are buying it.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

11. Is this a coincidence with the number 44? ACLU question death of 44 detainees

http://www.aclu.org/intlhumanrights/gen/21236prs20051024.html

OR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: [e-mail]

CIA, Navy Seals and Military Intelligence Personnel Implicated

NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union today made public an analysis of new and previously released autopsy and death reports of detainees held in U.S. facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of whom died while being interrogated. The documents show that detainees were hooded, gagged, strangled, beaten with blunt objects, subjected to sleep deprivation and to hot and cold environmental conditions.

""There is no question that U.S. interrogations have resulted in deaths,"" said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. ""High-ranking officials who knew about the torture and sat on their hands and those who created and endorsed these policies must be held accountable. America must stop putting its head in the sand and deal with the torture scandal that has rocked our military.""

The documents released today include 44 autopsies and death reports as well as a summary of autopsy reports of individuals apprehended in Iraq and Afghanistan. The documents show that detainees died during or after interrogations by Navy Seals, Military Intelligence and ""OGA"" (Other Governmental Agency) -- a term, according to the ACLU, that is commonly used to refer to the CIA.

According to the documents, 21 of the 44 deaths were homicides. Eight of the homicides appear to have resulted from abusive techniques used on detainees, in some instances, by the CIA, Navy Seals and Military Intelligence personnel. The autopsy reports list deaths by ""strangulation,"" ""asphyxiation"" and ""blunt force injuries."" An overwhelming majority of the so-called ""natural deaths"" were attributed to ""Arteriosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.""

While newspapers have recently reported deaths of detainees in CIA custody, today's documents show that the problem is pervasive, involving Navy Seals and Military Intelligence too.

The records reveal the following facts:

* A 27-year-old Iraqi male died while being interrogated by Navy Seals on April 5, 2004, in Mosul, Iraq. During his confinement he was hooded, flex-cuffed, sleep deprived and subjected to hot and cold environmental conditions, including the use of cold water on his body and hood. The exact cause of death was ""undetermined"" although the autopsy stated that hypothermia may have contributed to his death. Notes say he ""struggled/ interrogated/ died sleeping."" Some facts relating to this case have been previously reported. (In April 2003, Secretary Rumsfeld authorized the use of ""environmental manipulation"" as an interrogation technique in Guantánamo Bay. In September 2003, Lt. Gen. Sanchez also authorized this technique for use in Iraq. Although Lt. Gen. Sanchez later rescinded the September 2003 techniques, he authorized ""changes in environmental quality"" in October 2003.)
* An Iraqi detainee (also described as a white male) died on January 9, 2004, in Al Asad, Iraq, while being interrogated by ""OGA."" He was standing, shackled to the top of a door frame with a gag in his mouth at the time he died. The cause of death was asphyxia and blunt force injuries. Notes summarizing the autopsies record the circumstances of death as ""Q by OGA, gagged in standing restraint."" (Facts in the autopsy report appear to match the previously reported case of Abdul Jaleel.)
* A detainee was smothered to death during an interrogation by Military Intelligence on November 26, 2003, in Al Qaim, Iraq. A previously released autopsy report, that appears to be of General Mowhoush, lists ""asphyxia due to smothering and chest compression"" as the cause of death and cites bruises from the impact with a blunt object. New documents specifically record the circumstances of death as ""Q by MI, died during interrogation.""
* A detainee at Abu Ghraib Prison, captured by Navy Seal Team number seven, died on November 4, 2003, during an interrogation by Navy Seals and ""OGA."" A previously released autopsy report, that appears to be of Manadel Al Jamadi, shows that the cause of his death was ""blunt force injury complicated by compromised respiration."" New documents specifically record the circumstances of death as ""Q by OGA and NSWT died during interrogation.""
* An Afghan civilian died from ""multiple blunt force injuries to head, torso and extremities"" on November 6, 2003, at a Forward Operating Base in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. (Facts in the autopsy report appear to match the previously reported case of Abdul Wahid.)
* A 52-year-old male Iraqi was strangled to death at the Whitehorse detainment facility on June 6, 2003, in Nasiriyah, Iraq. His autopsy also revealed bone and rib fractures, and multiple bruises on his body. (Facts in the autopsy report appear to match the previously reported case of Nagm Sadoon Hatab.)

The ACLU has previously released autopsy reports for two detainees who were tortured by U.S. forces in Bagram, Afghanistan, believed to be Mullah Habibullah and an Afghan man known as Dilawar.

""These documents present irrefutable evidence that U.S. operatives tortured detainees to death during interrogations,"" said Amrit Singh, an attorney with the ACLU. ""The public has a right to know who authorized the use of torture techniques and why these deaths have been covered up.""

The documents were released by the Department of Defense in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans for Peace. The New York Civil Liberties Union is co-counsel in the case.

As part of the FOIA lawsuit brought by the ACLU, a federal judge recently ordered the Defense Department to turn over photographs and videotapes depicting the abuse of prisoners held by the United States at Abu Ghraib. That decision has been stayed until October 26. The government has not yet indicated whether it is going to appeal the court's decision.

The FOIA lawsuit is being handled by Lawrence Lustberg and Megan Lewis of the New Jersey-based law firm Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, P.C. Other attorneys in the case are Singh, Jameel Jaffer, and Judy Rabinovitz of the ACLU; Arthur Eisenberg and Beth Haroules of the NYCLU; and Barbara Olshansky of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

To date, more than 77,000 pages of government documents have been released in response to the ACLU's Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The ACLU has been posting these documents online at www.aclu.org/torturefoia.

The documents released today are available online at http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/102405/

[pinto]

13. What these folks did totally aside, the Telegraph is noted for

it's "creative" journalism, at times. Here, they haven't really helped shed light on the effin' issue as much as they have become *part* of the issue. In the corner of the world called journalism, that's a shame.

It pales before the events, though. And those *are* the point.

[noise]

15. Exactly

For Gibbs to pretend he is on the moral high ground here is absurd. We aren't talking about imaginary torture photos, rather the fact that there are two sets of torture photos. Sick.

[merh]

14. I think the only way to clear this up is to release ALL of the photographs

[Catherine Vincent]

21. I don't know why most of you want the photos released

Even if they are released, I don't think those responsible will be held accountable for them (Bush Cheney). More than likely some lower level person or people would take the fall. It is wishful thinking to think Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld will see a prison cell because of what happened.

[bigtree]

26. Obama's Gates gave the most convincing argument in the initial decision to release them

Gates: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iiCI9uDMed54iFPuJD1D8cNQp0uQ


"I think pretending that we could hold all of this, and keep it all a secret, even if we wanted to, I think was pretty unrealistic. So we'll just have to deal with it," he told reporters.

"There is a certain inevitability I believe that much of this will eventually come out and much has already come out," he said during a visit to the Camp Lejeune military base in North Carolina.

Asked if he backed the release of the memos, Gates said: "My own view was that I regarded the information about a lot of these things coming out as inevitable, and therefore how do we try and manage it in the best possible way."

[boston bean]

16. and this is good news?? what about the photos Taguba was talking about.

talk about trying to confuse the matter. who cares whether he was talking about that set or the set of 2000 the pentagon and obama were going to release on the same day, or if they are some other.

jessum chrissum, wake up people.

[boston bean]

17. If he's never seen the pictures how does he know he hasn't seen the pictures??

[noise]

18. Did the torture program endanger US soldiers?

Does the cover up of the torture program endanger US soldiers?

It's not impressive when politicians exploit soldiers to conceal their involvement in ordering war crimes or cover up for those officials who ordered war crimes.

The Bush administration sent soldiers into Iraq based on garbage intelligence and then had Bremer institute a "shock and awe" occupation policy that fueled the insurgency. Why isn't this discussed/prosecuted? If the bottom line concerns who endangered soldiers the most then we can point to the very same officials who are now claiming everything they did was motivated by concern for the troops.

[EFerrari]

22. It did and will for decades. The US signed off on their enemies using torture

when they tortured. :grr:

[matt819]

19. This is sounding awful Bushian

So the photos in question that the administration is trying to keep secret show torture but not rape.

But the photos Taguba was referring to were ones he saw during his investigation showed torture, rape, and the worst of the worst sort of criminal behavior, sanctioned, we now know, by Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush. No one is talking about releasing these photos, even though we have known for quite some time that they exist, though only recently have learned the extent of the depravity they reveal.

So the WH is trumpeting the fact that Taguba's comments don't apply to the first set of photos but rather to photos that show far worse? WTF?

The more this administration conceals and stonewalls, the more this is going to fester. The only solution is total release and prosecution from the top down.

[hvn_nbr_2]

24. A subject line of "Important--please read" always tells me...

"Don't waste your time on this overwrought piece of breathless hyperbole." Sheesh, the president's press secretary uses that as a subject line?!?!

[bigtree]

25. the Salon pics as described don't match Taguba's description of rape

Also, even if the pics he saw aren't part of the 44 sought in the lawsuit, there still were 2000, or so, reported which are also being suppressed by the administration. The article isn't clear about whether he's sticking to his description of rape, or if he was referring to the Salon pics when he described photos of rape. There don't appear to be any photos released by the administration (or the last one) which fit his descriptions.

The only significant news here is his opinion that the pics being withheld shouldn't be released, and that sounds like more institutional parentalism from a career military man.