Sunday, May 31, 2009

Don't trust headlines

"Retired US general denies seeing torture pictures" - AP Article headline

"WASHINGTON (AFP) – A retired US Army general has denied reports that he has seen the pictures of prisoner abuse in Iraq that President Barack Obama is fighting to keep secret." - first line of same article.

See the difference? The headline makes it appear that General Taguba has not seen photos of torture or rape in his investigations. What does the General have to say about this?

"These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency." - Gen. Taguba

The Telegraph article claimed these photos were part of the ACLU suit, and that Bush, and now Obama, want to suppress them. But the only incorrect part of that statement is that the "hundreds of images [Taguba] reviewed as an investigator of the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison" are not part of this particular lawsuit. But if so, where are these pictures? What has been done in response to them?

Apparently Taguba has not seen the particular 44 photos at issue. If that's true, why not? He was in charge of investigating the abuse.

A US General confirmed he's seen photos of US military personnel raping detainees. That much is clear. If rape photos didn't exist, why doesn't the administration simply say so, instead of highlighting the Telegraph's other errors?

I like accuracy as much as, and probably more than the next guy. But whether these photos are subject to the ACLU lawsuit or not is far less important than the fact that there are photos of our military personnel raping detainees.

No comments: