.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Born at the Crest of the Empire

Thursday, February 16, 2006

Salon has all the Abu Ghraib materials

Salon has ALL the Abu Ghraib materials in their possession, 1,325 images and 93 videos of suspected abuse. They have a small image gallery up with some yet unseen pictures (Warning: male nudity.)

Hopefully, this is it. Their impression, agreed on by the ACLU, is that this represents all of the possibly incriminating photos and videos that are known about.

posted by mikevotes at 1:02 PM

7 Comments:

  • Until the next set. Or until Gitmo photos come out. Or photos from our secret torture bases. Or other facilities in Iraq.

    Funny how we can justify a war by citing noncompliance with the UN but are not at all obligated to comply with said UN.

    By Blogger Nonplussed2, at 2:06 PM  

  • Ick...I think that I'll pass. I've frankly seen enough, saw enough two years ago.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:25 PM  

  • That's a good point. We never recognize the hypocrisy of American exceptionalism.


    But on the Abu Ghraib pics, this is everything that has been publicly mentioned. These are the materials from the investigation and the same set that were shown to the congress. There may be more out there, but this would represent everything the Army could uncover.

    And I doubt there are similar unofficial photos out of Guantanamo because of the difference in how it was set up and the people on site.

    There may be photos out there, but they are taken "officially," so there are not likely to be the same kinds of ridiculous abuses in them. Doesn't mean they didn't take place, but there are not likely to be similar photos from guantanamo.

    And Kvatch, I'm not encouraging anybody to go and see them. It's just significant that they're there. I looked through the short stack Salon and SBS offered, but I figured that I could stand what they considered editorially responsible. As to the ones they haven't posted, I really don't want to go there if I don't have to.

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 2:31 PM  

  • OGA hmm. love those guys

    By Blogger Yukkione, at 4:59 PM  

  • I want to ask you what your take on the ethics of reposting the photos is. One in particular shows a prisoner who is bound and being sodomized. I was going to post it on the blog last night but a power outage forced me to rethink.

    What I find important about the picture is that the prisoner's condition is justified By the CID report as a "mentally deranged detainee who required special restraint". Also the caption indicates the guards "did not commit any criminal offense." I find this important because it shows that there are officials involved who approve of these activities.

    So what's your opinion. Should it be reposted and to make people aware? Or should I just stay out of this one?

    In the End I'm not going to post it for personal reasons. But I am still curious as to your thoughts and the thoughts of bloggers in general concerning this matter.

    By Blogger Justin, at 3:39 AM  

  • Also for those who don't want to see the pictures, The link Mike's post leads to the article which only contains one not very graphic picture. I think the salon aritcle is an important read as it explains a lot about who was involved, who knew, and when.

    By Blogger Justin, at 3:46 AM  

  • I'm always a little muddy on the ethics of the pictures whether they are Abu ghraib or other Iraq/Afghan violence. I do think that they need to be available, and I have published some over time, but....

    I don't generally like to publish blood or gore just cause it seems exploitative to me. I mean, these are real people, not just props to be used for my purposes. But at the same time, a picture can convey, especially in a situation like Abu Ghraib, far more than any description.

    Bottom line, if we don't publish any pictures, the manipulation of the language employed by the whitehouse, torture becomes abuse becomes mishandling, the real story doesn't get told on a broader stage, and thus things like this are more likely to continue.

    So, and I don't have a hard and fast rule, I do think it's important that some of these images get out in the mainstream. So, I do publish some of these on a picture by picture basis. My general rule of thumb is no nudity, no excessive blood or gratuitous wounds, and whenever possible no faces.

    The last is probably the most malleable in that sometimes the facial expression is key to the moment of the photograph, but at the same time I try to be cautious about it because if I were the person in the picture, I would view it differently.

    Lastly, some of this must be publicized. I personally feel that with no visual coverage, people's mental concept of war is not accurate comprising more of a movie type image. If there had been no pictures out of Vietnam, for instance, that war might have gone on longer and thousands more would have died. But it's a balance. I've come across hundreds of "hunks of meat" photos in various places that just show grotesque wounds and disembodied parts, and those would certainly have an impact, but I don't feel right putting them up.

    I hope that helps. The bottom line is that I'm as conflicted as you are, and often work on a picture to picture basis. I just try to ask myself is this a cheap or exploitative usage of someone else's suffering for my petty reasons. Vague, but that's generally the guidance I use.

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 8:12 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home