The Bogus Torture Cover-up »
Posted By Progressive 6 months ago in Political News
The Pentagon is denying the facts: photographs of Abu Ghraib torture are even more sexually explicit than first reported, including rape and sodomy, writes The Daily Beast's Scott Horton, who has obtained specific and detailed corroboration of the photos.
Read Full Story at thedailybeast.com »
452 Views Share Story 32 Comments Report
Submitted By:
Progressive
There are only two kinds of people who are really fascinating: people who know absolutely everything, and people who know absolutely nothing. -- Oscar Wilde
I ...
Who Also Submitted:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 32 (view all)
-
-
40%
beavith16 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
'I'm sure that sexual abuse, to a greater or lesser degree, was relatively widespread.'
Reply
ORLY?
what makes you think so? just a feeling? got any proof? 'may be' more graphic is notht esame as it actually occurring.
the horrible hazing tha the prisoners took at Abu Ghraib would cost some parents $40k when their kids rush certain fraternities at certain US universities.
thanks, but i'll wait to see proof from the authorites instead of your rumor mill.
if THAT happened, those US soldiers are gong to jail. rape is a Uniform Code violation in all cases. -
-
-
89%
Progressive6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bush says lawyers OKd harsh interrogation:
Reply
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/05/bush-...-
38%
Endoscopy6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Not only did the lawyers OK it but the congress did as well. The liberals always ignore the law and go into rants. This story is pure speculation without evidence. They quote a story from Britain and say they have confirmation. I always take these kinds of stories with huge grain of salt.
Reply -
-
-
-
67%
tadair9196 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side," observed Orwell, "but he has the remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." In some cases, like the one presently under examination, the nationalist is vividly aware of atrocities only when they are committed by the "other side," and is hopelessly blind to them when they are carried out by the government he worships.
Reply
source: http://www.george-orwell.org/Notes_on_Nationalism/... -
-
sonofreasonComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
83%
Progressive6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How to make terrorists talk:
Reply
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090529/us_time/0917... -
-
-
50%
hyperbola6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You need to realize that the Obama administration is not much different than the Bush administration - he is controlled by the same corrupt military/security corporations, corrupt financial oligarchs and israel-firsters as Bush.
Reply
This is only one of dozens of campaign promises that Obama has already violated during his first 120 days.
Bush and Obama - Two Sides of the Same Coin: Heads-Heads
During the campaign, amid their state of elation, many disregarded Presidential Candidate Senator Barack Obama’s past record and took any criticism of these past actions as partisan attacks deserving equally partisan counterattacks. Some continued their reluctant support after candidate Obama became grand finalist and prayed for the best. And a few still continue their rationalizing and defense, with illogical excuses such as ‘He’s been in office for only 20 days, give the man a break!’ and ‘He’s had only 50 days in office, give him a chance!’ and currently, ‘be reasonable — how much can a man do in 120 days?!’ I am going to give this logic, or lack of, a slight spicing of reason, then, turn it around, and present it as: If ‘the man’ can do this much astounding damage, whether to our civil liberties, or to our notion of democracy, or to government integrity, in ‘only’ 120 days, may God help us with the next [(4 X 365) - 120] days.....
Despite all the promises Mr. Obama made during his campaign, especially on those issues that were absolutely central to those whose support he garnered, so far the President of Change has followed in the footsteps of his predecessor. Not only that, his administration has made it clear that they intend to continue this trend. Some call it a major betrayal. Can we go so far as to call it a ‘swindling of the voters’?
On the State Secrets Privilege
Yes, I am going to begin with the issue of State Secrets Privilege; because I was the first recipient of this ‘privilege’ during the now gone Administration...
Not only has the new administration continued the practice of invoking SSP to shield government wrongdoing, it has expanded its abuses much further. In the Al Haramain case, Obama’s Justice Department has threatened to have the FBI or federal marshals break into a judge’s office and remove evidence already turned over in the case, according to the plaintiffs attorney. Even Bush didn’t go this far so brazenly....
On NSA Warrantless Wiretapping
The new Administration has pledged to defend the Telecommunications Industry by giving them immunity against any lawsuit that may involve their participation in the illegal NSA wiretapping program.
.... Obama’s Justice Department defended its predecessor not only by using the State Secrets Privilege, but taking it even further, by astoundingly granting the Executive Branch an unlimited immunity for any kind of ‘illegal’ government surveillance.
-
-
83%
Poulenc6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What, beavith, is your investment in trying to minimize the reality of torture?
Reply
Do you always side with--and minimize the abuses of--those in power?
What's the payoff for you?
Do you feel your position is the moral one?
Why do identify compassion with weakness? -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Tcaros6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
automan is the type of person who derives his only pleasure in life seeing some less fortunate person suffering injustice.
Reply
He's the type that doesn't understand that the freedom he enjoys and the freedom of others are really the same thing.
He won't get it until it hits home.
-
-
-
-
-
0%
oldslowjim6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your declaration of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques being torture is simply your observation and carries no legal weight at all.
Reply
Until the EIT's are adjudicated and ruled on by the courts, and most probably the Supreme Court, they are only controlled by what the sitting President considers as POLICY.
Why do you think no lawsuit has been filed by the ACLU or GITMO detainee's lawyer preventing their future use? Is it because they're wimps or that they know the legal reasoning upholding them as legal is unassailable?
Obama could put this issue to rest by releasing a legal opinion from the Office of Legal Council declaring the EIT's torture and therefore illegal. BUT WAIT!
Then he could NEVER order anyone to use these techniques in the future. You'll notice that his executive order did not declare EIT's as illegal, only that the Army Field Manual should be used in interrogation. In addition, it reserves the authority to order the use of EIT's to both him and the attorney general.
Your conclusion would lead one to believe that Obama has reserved the authority to order TORTURE. Isn't that interesting!
You are ignoring what former Vice President Cheney said in his speech. In addition, you'll notice that in Obama's speech, he never used the word torture, only EIT. Change you can believe in!
Why do you think there are going to be no prosecutions? Why hasn't a differing legal opinion been released? There are a whole range of questions concerning this issue, yet I have yet to see any reporter or commentator (liberal or conservative) address them in a coherent fashion.
The main stream media on both sides has done a p.i.s.s. poor job of analyzing this whole controversy, probably for different reasons, but in the end the POLICY remains just as it was under Bush, i.e. EIT's are legally acceptable!
-
-
0%
lloydm656 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The worse statement made by a low life leftist creep,was early this week by Nora O'Donnell on mslsd,after talking to a empty suit,token white guy from the white house,she turned to the camera and said.Did We Go To far To keep America Safe.I jump to my feet,ran out the back door got to my truck,and started to puke.In 2005 Ben Laden said he had permission from his spiritual leaders to kill at least twenty million Americans.That included my children,grand,and great grand children .So Ms O'Donnell you can do me a big favor do the news we don't need any of your opinions,that is not your job.
Reply-
Neutral
Tcaros6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You're problem is that you actually believe everything the Neo-cons spit out.
Reply
Don't let these folks use fear to rob you of your liberties. That's how the Nazi's gained support, with fantasy. Bin Laden is not going to kill anyone. He couldn't have done it without the help of the people you are claiming blind allegiance to.
-
More News
Politics Daily
Obama Met State Dinner Party Crashers; Secret Service Taking Blame For Breach
Will Sarah Palin Ever Be President? A Guide to the Predictions
White House Gate-Crashers: Security Breach or Social Office Lapse?
A Year Out, Wisconsin Governor's Race Shaping Up to Be Close
Majority Say Accused 9/11 Conspirators Should Be Tried in Military Court
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.