Every quotation on the page is relevant and on-topic. Many of the quotes are first-hand accounts from victims of, witnesses to, or participants in abuse or torture. The "Reactions" section is perhaps quote-heavy, but that's the whole point of the section.
The text "You can edit the article to add more encyclopaedic text or link the article to a page of quotations, possibly one of the same name, on Wikiquote." seems to indicate that the template was not intended for this usage, anyway. The article as it stands is not short of encyclopaedic text, and it is not a "page of quotations". (A page of quotations relating to Abu Ghraib might be perfectly reasonable on WikiQuote, but it wouldn't look very much like this article.)
As for whether it is encyclopaedic in style, one could equally well argue that the style of printed encyclopaedias is too sparing with quotations, at least for some topics.
-- DavidHopwood02:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Objectivity
I notice that there are a lot of assumptions here, such as that it is TRUE that people were fed into plastic shredders and so on at this site. Have there been any bloody plastic shredders found? Any evidence aside from the claims of Saddam's opponents? I hate to be devils advocate here, and thats not even what I'm trying to do. I just think we should maintain some objectivity and not just assume that just because the country that most of us live in has invaded Iraq, means that everything bad we hear about Iraq or Saddam is true.
Also, note that Ahmed Chalabi and the INC have at least partially admitted that they knowingly fed the US false information about such things. Lets make an effort to produce facts rather than repeating propaganda. Thanks. :) XD :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) ;) -_-"'
I removed this: "There have also been many fan websites dedicated to some of the US soldiers in the photos, such as Lindie."
If there are such sites, at least one example should be given in the article. Her first name is misspelled, and she should be referred to by her last name.
I also removed this, because it is POV: "Apparently these people feel that the actions of the soldiers were justified for some reason or the other, either because they feel anything is justified in warfare, or because they were just following orders."
It is point of view to say their actions are justified because blah blah etc... However it is POV to state that these people feel that blah blah, because it is true that they feel this and thus show their support for the soldiers. There is a big difference between the two statements, how you wrote it above is the perfectly fine manner the alternative when we say that directly is not. Mathmo22:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Inclusion of Hersh's "Chain of Command"?
I'm slogging through Chain of Command. Hersh makes the case that 'Coalition abuse of prisoners at Abu Graib' is a direct result of policy decisions previously made by Rumsfeld and Bush. I'm curious if this article will eventually address the causes, accountability, and consequences. -- Zappini
I think it should include any related information that can be verified. Pedant 01:36, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
At some point, the fact of allegations, specifically what they are and where they originate, ought to be included, even if controversial and even if the actual events are not yet verifiable by means commonly available. Specifically, some latitude is needed when corroboration is merely hearsay. At some point after all, much of what we think we know depends on a level of trust in the source, especially if we do not have the physical proof in front of our eyes. I think stating that these serious allegations exist is vital -- with the caveat that they are also questioned in some circles (along with any basis of those questions). Otherwise, simply ignoring the topic can only incite distrust, and hinder the fleshing out of substance when more solidly verifiable facts are known -- which could take a while. -- rg
Arraignment dates
Quoting from the article:
The arraignments of Javal Davis and Ivan Frederick have been postponed until June 21. They are expected to face general courts-martial. Charles Graner is to stand trial January 7.
those dates refer to 2005, I assume? It would be nice if the year was added to the article. -- Schnee 22:47, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
ACLU document release
The ACLU has released some new FOIA documents related to Abu Ghraib: [1] - has someone looked through these yet?--Eloquence* 12:02, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
(No pictures) version nominated for deletion
Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (no pictures) is nominated for deletion from Wikipedia, here: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (no pictures). Votes, preferably with short comments explaining the reasoning behind the vote, are invited from every registered user of Wikipedia. (Unregistered users can comment.) A consensus is (theoretically) required to delete an article. As I write, besides the implicit delete vote of the nomination, there are four delete votes and one keep vote. I'm abstaining, myself, until more watchers/editors of the main article here share their opinions. I'm surprised to find neither any discussion of the (No pictures) version in the current version of the talk page nor any talk page for the (No pictures) version itself. Samaritan 11:45, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why do people think that it is a good thing to have to do two seperate edits of an article to keep things in sync? I think we're going to be in a lot of trouble here if this gets a foothold on Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
How about using templates to derive a picture-free version from this one? Cool HandLuke 02:15, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I created the 'no pictures' version, just to forestall removing images from the full article. With CoolHandLuke's brilliant work on this article, the point is moot. I'm not sure we shouldn't create an award and name it the CoolHandLuke award, for great work like this that goes above and beyond simple good editing. Pedant 01:35, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
By my count the VfD for the no-pictures version got 25 delete votes, 3 keep votes and 1 abstain vote. Furthermore, many of the delete votes specifically cited philosophical disagreement with the existence of the page rather than simply worrying about the practicalities of how to keep the two versions in sync. The Cool Hand Luke technique is very clever, yes, but I don't think it solves the basic problem many people have with this no-pictures version and IMO the results of the VfD should stand. Bryan 04:16, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I asked Ta bu shi da yu, who nominated the other article for deletion, what he thought of this version. It satisfied his primary complaint about forking the article, though not the "censorship" problem, but he was not willing to delete it. If you are willing to nominated it for VfD, I encourage you to do so. I'd like the attention it draws—it might be useful for the picture policy debate—but those results do not apply here. This is in no way a recreation of the article. Cool HandLuke 04:47, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think it's a very stupid idea. Why not just link the reader to instructions on how to turn of image display in their browser of choice? --Scott Paeth
How the censored version of this article works
I created a "no pictures" version of this article using the article itself as a template. Two template parameters are enbedded in this article, {{{morbid warning}}} at the top of the page and {{{suppress image}}} which is included in each potentially objectionable image tag after the pixel width.
Thus, the uncensored article pulls up with Template:Morbid warning at the top of the page in between curly brackets (this is default for named parameters). I've made the brackets unnoticeable in by turning them white. The image tags are rendered with garbage in them pointing to the non-extant "supress image" template. However, this does not affect the article because it's thrown out by the image tag parser. Therefore, the article is almost unchanged in presentation.
However, I've enclosed all potentionally objectionable images in divs. When the censored version pulls up, it displays text that would be under each image without any horizontal constraint. Thus, to prevent censored image descriptions from spilling across the censored article, I put them all in constraining divs.
Censoring works because the "supress image" parameter is set to "-5px" in the censored version, causing image display to error out. The "morbid image" parameter is set so that a completely different box at the top of the censored article informs readers that it is such and points back here.
This solution is clever because both versions use the same article for content. From the censored version, heading editing works normally, but if a user attempts to edit the whole article I've inserted a comment explaining that they must do it here. Cool HandLuke 04:51, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
misnomer
no pictures is a misnomer, since there is a "picture;" a map of Iraq. Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (censored) would be more accurate. — マイケル₪ 03:51, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
Yeah. The current title is following historical precedent. This is what the fork was titled. I'll move it to "censored" once the vote is over. Cool HandLuke 04:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Having a "censored" page - whatever you call it - sets a very very unhealthy precedent! I'm dead against it. Jooler
I wonder why this article get special treatment. What was wrong with the version that actually contained the photographs without which the text could not have existed? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:29, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This article is special becuase the pictures positively must be in the article, but said pictures upset enough users that they created a fork of the page. This was naturally unnacceptable, but because of the graphic nature of these photos (many of which were not run in major news outlets), a warning has been on this article since summer. Adding a link to template mirror seemed a harmless afterthought.
This article is special because the warning was stable for months, even through debate about the photos. I'm unaware of other articles that currently have content disclaimers. Cool HandLuke 10:23, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"the graphic nature of these photos (many of which were not run in major news outlets) " - that may have been the case in the USA, but I believe that in the UK (and most of Europe if not the World) all of these pictures appeared in the national press. Jooler 12:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't really understand where we got this "the pictures upset a lot of people" rationale for omission of pictures or putting additional warnings up. This is an encyclopedia, not a television program. People come to this article precisely because they are interested in the abuse, rape and murder of prisoners at Abu Ghraib by US armed forces, CIA members and contractors. If they think they might be upset, they don't have to read the article. We have site-wide content disclaimers on every page, explicitly stating: Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or photographs of human anatomy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:58, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I too am at a loss. When I voted to delete it the second time, I complained that it was bad precedent to set up something like this, and that there were plenty of other articles that this philosophy would apply equally to that were currently without uncensored versions. Alkivar tried to reassure me that this mechanism would be applied to those other articles over time as well. But that's exactly what I was complaining about, that's what "bad precedent" means. This is a fundamental disagreement with the philosophy of what's been done here, and I am only becoming more convinced of that. Bryan 17:34, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I still dont see what the fuss is all about? We're NOT CENSORING THE ARTICLE! It still exists in an uncensored form. We've merely created a version for people who WISH TO VIEW IT CENSORED! Offering an option neither condones nor opposes the content and most certainly falls within the scope of broadening the audience for Wiki. Alkivar 00:09, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't know whether it has been pointed out here yet, but people who want to view the article without pictures have a number of options. The simplest is to turn off the browser option to view images.
In Opera 7, go to File > Preferences > Multimedia, and set Images to "Show no images".
In Internet Explorer 6, go to Tools > Internet Options > Advanced, and in the Multimedia section, unmark Show Pictures. Unfortunately, this does not hide the puzzle graphic at the top-left of every page.
In Mozilla Firefox 1, go to Tools > Options > Web Features and unmark Load Images.
In Firefox you can also fix images from any given site using the right mouse button menu item "Block images from..."
In Netscape 7, go to Edit > Preferences > Privacy and Security > Images and select the Do not load any images option.
Offering a further option in this case is a bad precedent in my view, when people who don't want to see pictures already have many other options. Moreover the site-level disclaimer linked on every page states:
Wikipedia contains spoilers and content you may find objectionable
Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or photographs of human anatomy.
That should be all we need. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:59, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
These obscure disclaimers did not keep the peace here before. Are you telling me you don't even want a top-of-the-article disclaimer? Cool HandLuke 03:12, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
To me there appear to be three problems with the censored article:
the choice of which article to treat in this way is POV
the choice of which pictures to removes is necessarily POV.
By what authority has someone (Cool Hand Luke or whoever) decided what pictures should and what pictures shouldn't be censored? Why is is that there is no insistence that we have censorship around the picture A, but we MUST have censorship tags around B? Jooler 11:46, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, due to the number of pictures here and the fact that someone cared enough to make a fork of this page (which was completely unacceptable), I thought a novel solution might satisfy those that wanted this version (and there are quite a few), while simultaneously avoiding the problems inherent to a fork. Cool HandLuke 21:52, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This point is 100% moot, the Lynching photo is not a legit image according to wikipedia standards. Its copyrighted to a point where we cant use it, and will likely be deleted at the end of the week. Besides that fact, I believe this should not be included either. ALKIVAR™ 02:52, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I take it you are using the American usage of moot (irrelevant) rather than the British one (debatable) - see [[2]]. This image can easily be replaced by a similar one in the public domain. Alkivar - why don't you go ahead and create lynching (censored) if the image troubles you so much. If it doesn't trouble you then what is so special about the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse page (and image B in particular) that it warrants a censored version? Jooler 19:16, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Tell me which of those pages has a stable (tacit consensus) content disclaimer. This solution requires one, so any page that does not have one could not use this solution. I believe this page is unique for having a stable content disclaimer. Cool HandLuke 02:45, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why should it have a content disclaimer, and more than any of the other pages? What difference does that fact make anyway? What is so special about the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse page that means it deserves this special treatment. What is so disturbing about image B in particular that it requires censorship? Jooler 09:07, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I notice that there are a large number of pictures on this page, not just B, and the volume of pictures presumably merited the disclaimer (I can't speak for all the other editors that didn't remove it). I now think the only satisfactory way to offer an alternate version is to turn all of the images off in the alternate. That resolves the POV problem to an extent and allows moving back to "(no pictures)". Unless there are objections, I think we should do that. Cool HandLuke 09:17, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No it does not resolve the POV issue at all it merely obfuscates it. You are still declaring that one or more of the images are too "shocking" to show. That is your POV. This censored page , whatever you call it can have no justification under NPOV. The declared aim (so that children or people of a nervous disposition can read it) is not justified when viewed in relation to the numerous other articles on Wikipedia that contain images that might be seen as more shocking by one or more people. I would draw your attention to the article at Erection, shall we have Erection (no pictures) for the same reason? In some cultures it is "shocking" for a woman to be seen with uncovered hair. Must all of the pages on Wikipedia that contain pictures of women with uncovered hair, have "(no picture)" duplicates if a large enough and vocal enough minority object to it? Jooler 09:33, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No: we are declaring no such thing, these pictures are obviously not too shocking to show. The article shows the pictures, and I think that in this case people ought to view this pictures—it's important to understand the horror of what happened. However, I also realize this is my POV, and if demonstrably not shared by other editors. Actually censoring articles (as is done here by bluring the pictures) should not be done, but allowing a sizable group to see an article in a more useful form helps a collaborative encyclopedia. Ultimately software will make this moot, but until then, yes, every article with such a significant minority should qualify for an alternate presentation. Cool HandLuke 09:53, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It is not beyond the realms of possibility that a group of like minded people could organize themselves into a vocal minority in order to object to the content on Wikipedia. See my contribution on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive C#Democracy_on_Wikipedia. Just the other evening religious organizations in the United Kingdom orchestrated a campaign (throught the Internet and email) to attempt to stop the BBC from broadcasting Jerry Springer - The Opera. The BBC received 40,000 phone calls of complaint before the show was broadcast from people who hadn't even seen the show complaining the it was blasphemous. The creation of this censored page is the beginning of a slippery slope down the road where the entire content of Wikipedia will be censored because of a vocal minority. It must be stopped here and now. Jooler 09:44, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Slippery slope arguments are not strong. In this case, as I'm telling you, this all becomes moot once a general option to remove photos is available. It's not censorship anyway. I even posit it actually allows even greater editorial freedom—photos can be included without worrying about offending anyone. Editors who object would have the alternate version. Cool HandLuke 09:53, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You say "slippery slope arguments are not strong" - but you have also said "every article with such a significant minority should qualify for an alternate presentation" - you have thereby said that this article has set a precedent by which others may follow - if this isn't a slippery slope then I don't know what is. You say "Editors who object would have the alternate version." - but in order to make any significant changes to the article editors must edit (and therefore view) the uncensored version. So it cannot be of any benefit to editors at all can it? Jooler 10:06, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, a slippery slope argument implies that something will get worse in the future, and you specifically offered such a scenario—claiming baselessly that the fundamentalist might form a union and demand these versions all over the place. I find that a very tenuous slippery slope argument. However, I believe precedent for this solution as an interim measure for hotly contested articles is quite desirable.
Actually, one can edit the article without viewing it by using section editing. However, one is shuttled to the full version after saving, which might surprise some editors, but that's the limitation of this temporary solution. I don't expect the benefit to be yeilded on these articles anyhow; the reward is keeping contributers here in general. I doubt those offended by pictures of a clitoris, for example, will have much to contribute there, but on other subjects they may be very valuable to the project. Cool HandLuke 10:17, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Some may claim that, that what you claim to be baseless is already underway, but not from fundamentalist Muslims but from fundamentalist Christians and Jews. You just have to look at the arguments raging on pages that they tend to edit. One might argue that the conventional North American Christian viewpoint permeates right through this encyclopaedia, albeit hotly contested on certain articles. As I stated on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive C#Democracy_on_Wikipedia, and as a number of people have concurred, on many articles if one doesn't conform to the conventional mores and norms of the United States there is a tendancy for one's contributions to get shouted down. Jooler
I don't see this solution as POV, but you seem to believe that consensus decision making—one of the core wikipedia principles—will fail us. I'm not so pessemistic, but I certainly believe in opposing problems when they arrise. With few exceptions, the Christians who dominate articles about their own religion have not paid much attention to censorship. Moreover, they're typically ineffective with dogmatic insistance, say, that an image is pornography. If and when the fundamentalist come out of the woodwork to censor everything in sight, I'll oppose them with you. Cool HandLuke 19:39, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I do believe that the consensus decision making process is flawed because it can be hi-jacked by certain interest groups. As far as I'm concerned this is exactly what has happened here. By pandering to this vocal minority you have violated the principles of NPOV. You have decided that we must have a censored version and you have made a blanket decision that all of the pictures of abuse should be censored out, that none of them can be shown on the censored version. Good gried the Pentagon wanted to spuppress the pictures before their original publication and put heavy pressure on CBS not to show them. These pictures were splashed across the front pages of every newspaper in Europe and most of the world. It appears that only in the USA were these pictures and the story surrounding them suppressed in some way. Look at Talk:Abu_Ghraib_prison/archive1#Media coverage and Talk:Abu_Ghraib_prison/archive1#News coverage data. Although various people objectied to the pictures being included in Wikipedia and acted to suppress them in the article, NPOV triumphed. Jooler 23:32, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm very glad that it did. There were also attempts to limit the number of pictures by saying X article only has 8 pictures and so forth, but this article is exceptional in my view. I think this is an unusually important article, and don't believe users should have any excuse not to look at it, but if they don't want to the text alone ought to be available; it's better than nothing. I don't wish to be dogmatic with my POV that people (especially Americans) should see the whole article. Cool HandLuke 04:04, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Even using section editing one has to view the entire page before editing a section (unless the URL of the section and "action=edit" are entered directly into the address bar) and as you say - the editor will see it in full at the end. Jooler 10:34, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No. Section editing works normally from the censored page without needing to edit th URL or any other tricks. Try it. But yes, they do see the real version after saving. Cool HandLuke 19:39, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I see. I hadn't considered that, but even so you still end up viewing the page at the end. Jooler 23:32, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Uncensored picture
Looks good to me: that picture doesn't seem to meet the criteria in the header clearly (no nude, deceased, ect), but as some suggested in the VfD, inclusion of pictures might be much less subjective if we simply offer a version without any. Cool HandLuke 08:15, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In the interim, we might also uncensor what is arguably the most famous picture (prisoner on the box, which also makes the grafitti intellegable). To reiterate, I still think no pictures is a better idea. Cool HandLuke 08:28, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Whilst this page still exists as censored what is and what is not censored is a matter for community evaluation. If you move the page to (no pictures) then I will probably nominiate the page for deletion again. I might still do that with the page as it is, given the fact the there is no agreed minimum time period between one vfd and another. A majority of people have voted for the deletion of this page (in one form or another) twice and the other vote occured over the Christmas period after it had been speedily deleted and then re-instated. Jooler 08:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
OK, moved to "(no pictures)" which it proabbly should have been on in the first place. Although there's certainly no rule against nominating again, I think it might be prudent to wait a little bit first. Cool HandLuke 10:14, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
All the images we can present on this case should be made available. If there are specific problems with the content black boxes can be employed. Naturally we can present the link with a content warning, but that would be likely to attract attention of children etc. The current solution to mention that further material is on wikimedia and showing images that were on newspaper covers should be no problem. Being on a cover(children do see covers) or in an article of a freely available(no age restriction) international magazine can be used as a criteria to determine what can be presented and what not. Similar would be articles on pornography where we don't have to show things in all details. Naturally there are cultural variations, but with BBC, newsweek and the like we probably cover the mainstream. Wandalstouring22:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect image
The image on this page of the soldier with the dog and the prisoner in an orange jumpsuit (Media:Abu Ghraib 56.jpg)is a duplicate of Media:Guantanamo-dog.jpg which is on the Guantanamo Bay page. Is this from from Guantanamo or is it from Abu Ghraib? One or other should be deleted. Jooler 13:09, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That's probably my mistake, I uploaded the (Media:Abu Ghraib 56.jpg) version, however the site it came from stated it took place at Abu Ghraib. It could be from Guantanamo, however http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured/ has it listed as published by the Washington post, and all of the rest on the whole page is Abu Ghraib. Easy to see why it could be a mistake. Other than that I couldnt tell you which its actually from. ALKIVAR™ 00:04, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It looks like Abu Ghraib to me. The sickening thing is that similar torture and intimidation happen at both. The other photos don't show orange jumpsuits at Abu Ghraib, though they were often naked. This picture is included in some galleries ([3][4]), and more importantly the Gaurdian says it was first published in Washington Post in May as an Abu Ghraib picture [5]. They even have a story dated in may concerning it[6]. This explains why the picture isn't showing up on the many articles detailing the authorization of dogs and other torture at Guantanamo Bay. Logically, the military would not want these to get out because, as you've said, it's easier to ignore without the photos. Cool HandLuke 00:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Perpetuating a euphemism? (proposed title change)
Hello --
I notice that the title for the article follows the practice of the major US news outlets in referring to "prisoner abuse."
This is euphemism in a political context and with a clear political intent, bordering on doublespeak. It is neither accurate nor neutral.
If we were to ask 100 persons what single word best describes the following acts ...
Setting attack dogs upon prisoners
Beating detainees (in some cases to death)
Slamming detainee against a wall, thus creating a wound requiring stitches
Attaching wire to detainee's penis
Raping female detainees
Sodomizing male detainees with objects
Urinating on detainees (see NEW YORK TIMES January 12, 2005)
Jumping on detainee's leg (a limb already wounded by gunfire) with such force that it could not thereafter heal properly (see NEW YORK TIMES January 12, 2005)
Continuing by pounding detainee's wounded leg with collapsible metal baton (see NEW YORK TIMES January 12, 2005)
... the most popular descriptive word that would come back would not, I think, be "abuse."
"Abuse" suggests (to me) rough language or perhaps incidental unpleasant physical contact. Abuse is part of what happened, perhaps, but not an accurate description of the totality of the event.
It's rather like describing a plane crash into the side of a mountain as a navigational failure. True as far as it goes, but clearly inadequate.
Consider: A school principal calls a parent and says, "We have had reports that your son has been abusing other students."
Does the parent assume that the son has been raping other students? Or setting attack dogs upon them?
"Physical assault," "sexual assault," "battery," or "torture" are much more accurate words to describe the actual events under discussion, whether or not it suits the purposes of major media outlets to use these words.
I propose that we change the title of the article to:
This title has zero google hits. The previous title has 36,000. I don't disagree with this move enough to move it back, but I'd like to point out that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) says we should keep articles at their most common usage, the name that most people would type into a search, even if this name does not reflect the most recent scholarship. Because this title is entirely novel according to google (original research), we ought to strongly consider moving it back. Cool HandLuke 20:21, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I see your point. FYI -- "Abu Ghraib torture" (which is, one can argue, really the most accurate title of all) has 26,300 Google hits. Given the points you've raised (and that I should have looked up), perhaps we would simply be better off with "Abu Ghraib scandal" (67,000 hits). My personal opinion is that putting the "prisoner abuse" thing in the title is intellectually dishonest and offensive -- like listing the "ethnic cleansing" under "ethnic strife" or something. BrandonYusufToropov 21:53, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think either "Abu Ghraib torture" or "Abu Ghraib scandal" (which was originally suggested in earlier talk pages) would be a good solutions, but let's grant some time for comments (if any). Cool HandLuke 01:29, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think for many readers (maybe primarily outside of US/UK) there is an important difference between what can be expected from an article on a Abu Ghraib scandal compared to an article on (Alleged) Abu Ghraib torture — in the former case, the focus is on the perception and reception in the US, in the latter case, the focus is on what actually happened in that Iraqi prison (and, of course, indirectly in many other US custodies overseas). I guess a changed title will reflect also in a changed sense of what's the proper scope of this article. /Tuomas 07:34, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I do agree that the previous title was unnecessarily POV. This title is much better. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:46, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No objections from me. If there's no dispute there, just apply "<font color=white>{{{mWf}}}{{morbid warning}}{{{mWb}}}</font>" to the top of that page, insert {{{suppress image}}} before each image description, and copy contents of Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (no pictures) to Charles_Graner (no pictures) as applicable. Cool HandLuke 12:00, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm certainly not going to create it. I'm just pointing out that the anomaly exists and that the bad precedent has led to the possibility of this and other pages of a similar nature. If the page is created I will certainly nominate it for deletion. Jooler 12:15, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. There's no disclaimer on it currently, so I'll leave it alone unless there's interest. Cool HandLuke 20:48, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What factuality and neutrality issues, specifically, are disputed?
The "In defense" section contains material that Rush Limbaugh denied saying. The dispute template can possible be moved to the section in question. User:204.78.11.13
I located the proper template and updated accordingly User:204.78.11.13
I have heard recordings of Rush's show in which he says this. How can he deny it, and how is it POV? --jacobolus(t) 13:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Where does this picture come from? How do we know the prisoner is dying? The image was uploaded by User:AshSert without a source or a copyright tag. If neither is provided, it should be deleted. I have removed it from the article for now.--Eloquence* 10:45, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
You are right, bad filename, the man is alive today and talking at the court-martials, but the photo is from Washington Post like the rest [7]. I will upload with a better name. Meggar
What about this picture:
A prisoner in an orange jumpsuit is threatened with physical harm by an MP K-9.
No information on the image page. When and where was it released? How do we know it's from Abu Ghraib? It was under the 60 minutes heading, but was definitely not part of that report. People, pay attention to the images, please. Not everything that has soldiers and prisoners in it is necessarily from A.G.--Eloquence* 02:43, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
This one was discussed under #Incorrect image above. It was published first by the Washington Post last May. I'm adding that information to it. Cool HandLuke 04:02, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Template unnecessary
A simple link is enough. Other people might find other pictures/pages offensive. Unsigned. Page history says: 08:20, 2005 Feb 20 J heisenberg
The template should stay on the page. The censored article was declared an exception, and rming the template breaks the censored version. This article is the only one at the moment that uses the template. However, future articles may use the tag. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-20 13:56 Z
Um. I don't think this template makes sense there.
At any rate, you can do what you were trying to do by simply editing the template itself. You could remove the box and make the one-line alternative. That would not break the censored version and it could look exactly like what you were doing. However, I think this warning is better. How is a user to know if it offends them if they don't know what's in the article? Cool HandLuke 14:04, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Again, edit Template:Morbid warning if you want to do this. Just make sure the template begins "</font>" and ends "<font color=white>" Cool HandLuke 14:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
children tortured
It looks like they didn't even spare children from torture. [8] Some quotes "In one case, witness statements among the released documents allege that four drunken Americans took a 17-year-old female prisoner from her cell and forced her to expose her breasts and kissed her." and "In another documented incident, troops are alleged to have smeared mud on the detained 17-year-old son of an Iraqi general and forced his father to watch him shiver in the cold." Boy, it seem there was nothing off limit down there.
A murder at Abu Graib
"In 2004, reports emerged of numerous instances of abuse, torture, and murder of prisoners in the Baghdad Correctional Facility..."
This statement is wrong in several ways. First of all, there were not "numerous instances" of murder. There was only one reported death, that of Manadel al-Jamadi. Also, the death was not an execution, as "murder" would suggest; he death was due to injuries suffered during interrogation. (Not that that makes it any less horrible. They still killed him, even if it was unintentional. It disgusts me to even think about it.)
Yes, the death should be mentioned in the article, but it needs to be stated in a way that is not misleading. - Pioneer-12 18:51, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
p.s. Just for the record, I'm not trying to defend or justify or "tone down" the crimes that happened at Abu Graib; just trying to be accurate.
Thanks for doing some more research. Murder does not imply execution. Torturing a man to death (which is what was alleged, as a matter of fact) is murder. The Senate Armed Services Committee questioned Rumsfeld over this in may, and afterwards one of its members (a Republican) told the press that the US public ought to wake up, that this wasn't just torture they were investigating, but rape and murder. I'll find his actual words if you like (had them earlier but my browser had a seizure). His words did include rape and murder. This was widely reported in the press, around May 7. So the original text was correct. Your text seems okay, I'll check it closer tomorrow (nearly midnight here). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:50, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for checking back. Just to be clear: the old text is false/untruthful/inaccurate because there were not numerous instances of murder. The statement was factually wrong, thus it had to be fixed. (And shame on Wikipedia for letting such a blatant factual error slide by for so long!) - Pioneer-12 02:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think I need it explained to me how death as a result of "injuries suffered during interrogation" does not constitute murder. - LamontCranston 12:27, 16 Feb 2006 (UTC)
If you are going to censor images, i.e. use the {{{suppress image}}} template, then at least limit the use to "photographs of torture, nudity, and a deceased person". Don't censor pictures of Al Gore, Iraqi graffiti, London graffiti, and a Cuban billboard. Thank you. -Ajshm10:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
What about blurry images, black-barred images, photos of photos, or artists' renditions of the suppressed images? Should an image be suppressed while attempted duplicates of the image are posted? These questions are part of the rich behind-the-scenes discussion of this issue, which is not as easy and objective as it might appear. At the time that I examined the wiki, two versions of the page were available -- one with all photos visible, the other with essentially all photos suppressed. That makes sense to me. On the suppressed version, I see no incentive to fiddle with subjectivity just so that some disturbing photos are available. The entire purpose of the "no pictures" mirror page is to suppress disturbing visual content. Rather than second-guessing the viewer, it think that it is much easier, safer, more sensible, and more effective to suppress all of the event depictions. (In exchange for providing that service, in my opinion there is a tacit acceptance that the offendable user can seek out their own pictures of Iraq or Al Gore. The benefit-value of the neutral photos on that mirror page is negligible.) At the top of any page that image-suppresses, there should be a link to a page [[How to Turn Off Images]]. That page would tell the user how to turn off their browser's autoloading and how to load images individually by hand, allowing them to make their own decisions about viewing individual images on any Wikipedia page. --Brokenfixer20:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
"Censorship" is a complete red herring when the primary version of the page displays all images by default. A link at the top of the "(no pictures)" mirror entry immediately takes you to the primary entry, where the pictures are shown. On a fundamental level, Wikipedia acts as provider of these images. You are viewing these images because Wikipedia has placed them here for your viewing. These images are passively countenanced, sanctioned, endorsed, confirmed, and what-have-you by Wikipedia itself. Calling {{{suppress image}}} "censorship" (especially when that image is not suppressed in the primary wikipedia entry) does not contribute to discussion. --Brokenfixer20:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't think this is the place for wider debate which has been had many times elsewhere. I think Ajshm just meant that {{{suppress image}}} is designed to be attached to images that may plausibly be offensive. Rd232talk22:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. In my opinion, the two sites currently look well-executed: images of graffiti are being shown even on the no-pictures site. It wasn't my intention to ignite non-existent controversy. My intended point was just that we can use a loose interpretation of "plausibly offensive" for the secondary site without risking a censorship act, since the primary site, with all the pictures, is obvious and accessible. --Brokenfixer08:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Response to cleanup demand (1)
The following statement in the article is entirely unsubstantiated. It needs a citation.
A U.S. veteran sergeant reported witnessing torture in Iraq in Spring 2003, and alleged his commanding officers acted to cover-up these activities.
Thanks for your contribution. (sign your posts!). I condensed that paragraph and added the citation, which I believe is the Ford accusation. Thanks for your help! Kaisershatner14:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
NPOV
This article is very POV and one sided. The entire article is 99% written from one POV and doesn't actually represent much in critical response to these accusations. It relies excessively on the report from one guy and uses no criticism of it. It makes various unsourced or poorly sourced accusations (like those of rape/urination). I'd like to see a copy of this NYTimes article. It even glosses over the fact that Hersh blatanted lied about his accounts. The article uses euphimistic language to do it. He didn't lie, instead he "changed facts and events for audience consumption." The language used automatically assumes that everything is abuse or torture, which is also POV. Oh and the pictures are lovely too, the whole page is plastered with 11 pictures relating to "abuse and torture", even articles like the holocaust have nothing like that.
Please don't remove the NPOV tag until these issues have been address. NPOV tags don't have expiration dates, they stay on indefinitely until the issue is resolved, even if no one does anything. Nathan J. Yoder06:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Bear in mind that the report is corroborated by the guilty pleas, by detainees, by ex-General (now Colonel) Karpinsky, and by photographic evidence. This is a topic that should not be brushed under the rug, and because this torture is probably still continuing in Iraq and in eastern Europe it is quite topical. Without the photos it would be a lot easier for folks to disbelieve the entire account. Sukiari03:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
"The language used automatically assumes that everything is abuse or torture"
The Oxford English Dictionary defines torture as "the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain."
It is clear that this is what was happening there. This isn't POV, it's simply proper use of language. This is a little more serious than 'hazing', despite what some would have us believe.
No, it's not clear that that's what is happening here. Most of those listings don't involve inflicting any pain at all, they're psychological in nature, not physical. If we use the "to force them to say something" out of context like that, forcing someone to say "hello" would be torture. So would making them do jumping jacks. And if they are corroborated, then you should present evidence of that, you are required to cite sources, otherwise it doesn't get included. The goal of Wikipedia isn't to make people believe things and the fact that you admit you're trying to make people believe things shows your motive to trying to s upport a POV. Nathan J. Yoder17:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
You really don't want to use the proper English term for what's going on here do you? It's torture. I'm sure being kicked, stacked in a pile, beaten, attacked by dogs, raped with a chemlight, having a sandbag (usually 40 lbs.) placed over your head while you stand on a box and are probably shocked (the report may say 'simulated' but you'd have to be a jackass to believe that), sat on until you die, chained to the floor in the cold until you die, and the other 'listings' as you so euphemistically call the torture aren't really painful at all.
In fact, because they aren't painful at all, maybe you should try a few at home, just to prove how gentle and merciful the captors were actually being.
Talk about POV. Using the proper English term for what was happening (TORTURE) is not POV, it's just good sense.
I will add a section about other tortures along with sources, that should hopefully put an end to this ridiculous 'simulated' and 'threatened' business. Mind you that the OED definition for torture is: "the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain." They do not include a caveat that only PHYSICAL pain is required for an action to be considered torture. What about water torture? Or is water 'listings' now? Or when that guy was forced to watch his children get tortured (listed?) in order to provoke him to talk. Is that torture? Or just another 'listing'?
You seem to have missed the word 'severe' there. It's a subjective word, which makes the whole qualification of 'torture' subjective. I can pinch someone, and it will hurt, but will it cause "severe pain"? Hardly. Is making a guy walk around in women's underwear constitue infliction of 'severe pain'? Hardly. It's not "good sense" to qualify things as torture as you please and as NPOV is an absolute policy, there is no compromise regarding this, especially considering it is widely contested what constitutes torture. NPOV policy requires that articles reflect widely contested views as such, so your personal opinion on the matter doesn't matter. Lastly, read WP:NOT you are absolutely FORBIDDEN from speculating, no matter how obvious you think it is. And quite frankly, your speculation is completely unsubtantiated anyway. Nathan J. Yoder22:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
It's good to be frank. But calling this speculation is not accurate, as it substantiated by reports from the torturers themselves, their victims, photographs, and written evidence of torture. Raping someone anally with a chemical glow stick is not to be equated to a pinch. Neither is attacking somebody with a dog. There are many corroborated reports of this activity, including beatings so severe that they result in death. Being sat upon until you suffocate is equivalent to a pinch? Being forced to simulate or actualize homosexual activity is equal to a pinch? Severe pain could, and indeed has, be easily effected even by a pinch.
I will add a section, backed by credible reports and even testimony under oath, to hopefully counter the POV spin of 'simulated' rape, forced sex acts, and electrocution, and 'threatened' beatings, torture, and murder, to this article to hopefully provide readers with the tools they need to make informed decisions regarding this torture.
But beyond the photographic and other evidence of torture, as a human being, doesn't it bother you that we are running the same kinds of rape and torture facilities that were paraded in front of the public as one of the strongest and most compelling reasons to go to war? My personal point of view is that this represents a most heinous crime, and the new evidence that the orders came down from Old Rummy himself are quite damning to the whole spin cycle about this torture.
There are no reports from the torturers themselves that they used electricity (as opposed to simulating it), so you can't substantiate it. The reports of rape were from contractors, not soldiers and represent the minority of cases anyway. These reports aren't corroborated, in fact, people have ended up retracting them because it was found they were either flat out lying or grossly exaggerated.
And no, you won't add even more POV to the already POV article. This article is already ridiculously unbalanced as it is, representing only one side. You fail to address the fact that most of these acts of "torture" are really just humiliating incidents involving nakedness and in some cases simulated acts, that don't involve rape or beatings at all. Oh and cold water--brrrr, torture. Slapping, owwy, torture. I also note that you stopped trying to defend the argument that torture is, by definition, objective.
Your intent here is very clear--to make the POV article even more POV. What you call "spin" is actually liberal sources of information, which constitute most of the information in this article, so my only guess is that you intend on adding wild speculation from some ultra-liberal, conspiracy-theory sources of some kind. Calling the taguba report conservative spin is laughable, when it's actually quite the opposite--the whole report was very harsh about what happened there, why do you think it's one of the prime sources of information cited by liberals regarding alleged torture? Nathan J. Yoder01:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
There ARE in fact reports from many sources corroborating the torture, and I WILL add them in a section. It is not POV to point out plain facts, despite the agenda that you are clearly pushing here (the 'torture isn't torture, and didn't happen anyway despite the evidence agenda). What is the 'other side'? That torture didn't happen at all, and these photographs, the guilty admission by the torturers, the testimony and reports from the tortured and other witnesses, and other corroborating evidence is in fact imaginary or somehow is being taken the wrong way? That the dead bodies, who died after severe physical assaults (or listings?) are not to be considered victims of torture? That the DOD has admitted that at least 23 prisoners were killed while under interrogation by US troops or contractors is not evidence for torture? Which people in particular have retracted their reports of anal rape with a chemlight?
I see no need to defend or attack the definition of torture - it is clear enough to anyone with the stomach for these photos and the other evidence that torture did indeed happen. Is this another "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" argument? Because that's what your argument is shaping up to be. I am not calling the Taguba report spin, I am calling the euphemisms 'simulated' and 'threatened' spin. And I notice that you haven't defended your claims that sitting on somebody until they suffocate isn't torture. You also betray your motivation by the use of the word 'liberal'. I'm no liberal, and I don't think John McCain or other Republicans would be considered liberals either.
Once my addition is complete and added to the article, you can discuss it with others here on the talk page. I will make every effort to present only facts, and leave conclusions to others. However, to threaten to delete whatever I add before I even add it, and before examining the corroborating facts, seems to betray an agenda here that is quite POV oriented. Your juvenile attempts to re-classify physical abuse and torture as 'brrr' and 'owwy' betray your agenda as well.
Be assured that I will add more facts information to the article which evaporate the claims that the torture carried out in Iraq was only simulated or threatened. The Taguba report is only one source of reports of these tortures, and may not even be the best source.
Actually, you don't understand WP:NPOV policy at all. Even if you found factual sources, which is doubtful, it wouldn't be NPOV to simply put them in. I suggest you actually read that page. It's not enough for them to simply be facts, it's the context and how you present those facts that's important too. The other prevailing point of view is about the extent and severity of the torture, as well as what constitutes torture. By blanket labelling everything torture you're obviously just represnting one POV. Plus given that you don't understand the difference between speculation and fact, I have extreme doubts that you can find any reliable sources of information.
If you had actually been reading news sources, you'd notice that what constitutes torture is contested. This has nothing to do with the definition of 'is', I even explicitly explained what the problem is, but you deliberately ignored that it engage in an argument which I never made. Your own definition uses the word 'severe', which is obviously a subjective word, which makes torture subjective. If you can't even acknokwledge that the word torture is subjective and that there is gray area, then you shouldn't be editing this article, PERIOD.
And by calling those "euphimisms" spin, you are calling the Taguba report spin, since those are direct quotes from the Taguba report. Or are you making some argument about the word "is/are" here, where those quotes ARE'nt actually part of the Taguba report? If they didn't actually run an electrical current through those wires, then it IS a simulation, the only way to argue otherwise is by arguing the definition of 'is.' You can use circular logic all you like, but it won't make what you say any more true. And I'm not going to address a few isolated incidents when the overwhelming number of cases were just some guys being forced to do something while naked or being *threatened*. Honestly, you think having cold water poured on you is torture? I've had that done to me as a kid as a prank and I forgot about it minutes later, but according to you, it was torture and I should have post-traumatic stress.
Please don't tell me what I'm doing. The Taguba report, damning as it is, clearly held back to some degree.
But your continued refusal to back up your claims that certain reports of torture were retracted, and your refusal to discuss other tortures such as dog attacks, suffocation resulting in death, and other clear torture techniques does betray an agenda that is hardly interested in facts. There is no 'circular logic' being employed here. If anybody is guilty of sophistry, it is you - rather than confronting the dog attacks, muscular and skeletal stress torture, mental torture (taking into account the fact that most of the victims are Muslim), beatings, anal rape with various objects, etc. you will only mention slapping and water dumping, and in a dismissive way as if these are the only torture techniques that have been substantiated at Abu Ghraib. Obviously torture doesn't bother you - that's a lamentable position to take, but you have the right to have whatever opinion you want. But if we allow our government to employ torture, we open a Pandora's box that we may never close again, as other countries and NGE's will clearly see that there is no longer any reason to refrain from torture if we won't.
You begin this section by accusing the article of being 'one-sided'. I haven't heard you describe what other sides there are to this scandal. Unless you can describe the other side's view (?) your accusation rings rather hollow.
It's physically nauseating to see someone defend and make light of even the actions for which people were convicted here on Wikipedia. It's a big place, I know, there are many points of view represented, but this is pretty much a new low.--Dhartung | Talk23:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Is this why the article is deemed NPOV? It's pretty clear much, if not all, of the torture described in the main part of the article is true (photographic evidence and all), so I'm not sure where the NPOV tag comes in.--Firsfron04:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
the only specific accusation of POV is about the word "torture", by a single user who bases his objection on the fact that some of the less severe offenses committed against prisoners are mere abuse; in particular, slapping, pinching and the use of water. This objection is addressed by the current title of the article - "torture and prisoner abuse" - clearly both types of behaviour occurred. It is absurd to argue that anal rape of a bound prisoner with a chemical light or interrogation ending in death are not torture, so clearly the title is factually correct. This point has been made by other users, but the NPOV accuser has not addressed it at all. The accusation is unsubstantiated. A single accusation without backup or cogent argument is not sufficient to support an NPOV tag, otherwise the time cube guy would have his claims of NPOV on the time article upheld. Further - the NPOV tags are inserted in specific sections of the article, but the accusation does not relate to those specific sections. Perhaps the tags were merited in earlier versions of this article - there is a trail of cogent discussion on how to remove POV sections above. However all of the objections raised appear to have been dealt with to the satisfaction of all commenters, with the exclusion of a single non-specific accusation that does not bear even cursory logical examination. I'm surprised to be able to say it on such a potentially contentious issue, but there is really no need for the NPOV tag on this article. Viveka12:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Njyoder has attempted to employ every tactic in the book to somehow disconnect the word torture with the torture that has gone on at Abu Gharib and continues to this day in other American held or operated facilities around the globe. Pure sophistry. It's hard to assume good faith in such a situation. This story continues to develop, and as I mentioned above, many of the tortures mentioned as simulated in the Taguba report were not simulated at all, but really took place. Sukiari04:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Just throwing in my two cents here... This is an excellent article, and I want to give a big thank you to Sukiari and anyone else who has contributed to the text. Keep up the good work! Furthermore, I'm very impressed by the argument you made for your position above. Jonas Liljeström12:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
A few months on Mr. Yoder has decided to slink away and wisely refrain from his previous course of action. With the new Pentagon programs that have been initiated with the purpose of sanitizing and altering online blogs and other forums (Wikipedia is included in this as well no doubt) we have to be doubly vigilant, because the reality is that the Internet has become an online propaganda battlefield. The kinds of edits these Goebbels type clowns will make will be easy enough to spot, though. Sukiari23:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I fight Goebbels in another battlefield (Punic Wars) and it isn't that easy. Especially when they can use sources that are hard to get or a great volume to read. On the other hand if we once catch any official interfering in our business he and his institution are likely to be so burned that the risk is too high. I think there are enough people with strange opinions in the net and wikipedia is a magnet for them. It is far easier and safer to cast opinions on some more POV profile sites and let the dogs out. Wandalstouring23:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Changed to remove 'simulated torture' POV...
I changed a few of the examples of the POV in the list of torture techniques to eliminate the POV 'simulated' torture spin.
The DOD has lied about everything they could get away with, and more on this issue. Let's be open to the possibility that the electric torture and other tortures weren't NECESSARILY simulated.
Sorry, I didn't quite realize what I was doing. BE BOLD, right?
There should be added a caveat that perhaps the tortures weren't just 'simulated', and that perhaps prisoners weren't just 'threatened' with the various forms of torture. It is more than probable that there tortures weren't just simulated and threatened, but actualized.
It's not a spin, that's what it said in the official report. Wikipedia is not the place for speculation. Stop trying to change it, you are in blatant violation of Wikipedia policies. Do not edit this article any further until you understand that a) it is not appropriate to change quotations and b) it is not appropriate to engage in speculation of any kind, especially POV speculation. Nathan J. Yoder17:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I apologized for the bad edit, and this is not something I'd do on purpose. I had scrolled too far and missed that the excerpts were from the report.
It's hardly speculation to disbelieve that the torture was simulated. The only reason why it can't be proven to be real is because you can't really see sparks flying from this guy.
The issue is whether electrocution was simulated or real, not whether simulating torture can be a kind of lesser, mental torture itself. Clearly it can be proven that electrocution never happened simply by examining the picture of the hooded detainee on the box. The wire just goes from one hand to another. It isn't connected to anything else. For that to be a picture of the prisoner being shocked, there don't need to be "sparks flying", but there does need to be a wire traveling away to some source of electricity like a battery, and there isn't any such wire. Furthermore this kind of mean spirited prank is consistent with the behavior of Graner and his crew. For this article to be NPOV it needs to stick to the facts that we know happened, not what one wiki editor (Sukiari) suspects happens. Walterego (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
32074091875091864350643509874350987435097435
Aiden delgado recently visited our town of boise Idaho, as many of you know, he claims that 90 percent of the prisons are there for petty crimes and village sweeps. Recently an Abu graib warden returned home to idaho. anybody have any good info on that?
-matt
This photo is of tools found at an Al Qaeda torture house while victims were being rescued in May of 2007, are they not?
Calton49 (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
(initial disclaimer/apology: this is my first talk page entry, apologies if I edited the article or added anything incorrectly)
From the section "Reports of abuse," I removed the sentence accusing Ford of delusions and various lies. The linked article [9] makes several accusations but contains no references to support them. I searched for further substantiation of the claims but only found one other article [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1306991/posts], and it appears to be based primarily on the first one.
The addition seems (like the linked article) merely to exist as a baseless citation to counter the Sergeant's story and probably as a weak smear campaign against Ford.
Please provide something more substantial. —The preceding unsigned comment was added bySstrader (talk • contribs) .
Helloooo?
This doesn't look very neutral to me. Isn't it already known that terrorists are TRAINED to say they where tortured in the first place? —The preceding unsigned comment was added byOSborn (talk • contribs) .
Do you know of an authoritative source for this factoid? Bush apologists keep repeating this. But no one, that I am aware of, has substantiated this claim. I challenge you to find a single reliable authoritative source for this claim.
>Funny how you demand 'authoritative sources' for the highly plausible claim that terrorists are trained to resist interrogation and make false claims of abuse, yet you swallow whole without circumspection that the prisoner's allegations are true. Thanks for showing your true colors. No "Bush apologists" are excusing the behavior at Abu Ghraib which is clearly criminal behavior. It is your frothing conspiracy theory of a Bush connection to this isolated crime, committed by a miniscule percentage of soldiers, which is most laughable.
Remember the bush apologists who advance this claim are the same crowd who swore that Saddam had a vast arsenal of WMD that represented an imminent deadly threat to the USA, and that the Iraqi people would welcome the American liberators with flowers and kisses.
>Saddam DID have a vast arsenal of WMD. The question is where that arsenal is NOW. He did not prove he destroyed it as required under UN Resolutions. BTW, American solders were, and ARE, welcomed by Iraqis as liberators with flowers and kisses. Try looking for the evidence of that and you might actually find it. Better yet, try serving in Iraq to dispel your ignorance.
The disproof that all abuse claims are bogus fictions, based on al Qaeda training is that detainees who are clearly innocent of any ties to al Qaeda also claim abuse.
>NO ONE is claiming that Al Qaeda training disproves abuse claims by prisoners. There is no doubt that the abuse occurred and that it was illegal. The Army was investigating it BEFORE the scandal was leaked to the public. There is also no doubt that some of the prisoners have been trained to resist interrogation and lie about abuse. Captured Al Qaeda training manuals and the experience of our Miliary Intelligence personnel prove this. We're sorry that George Bush hasn't personally come to your house with the evidence. In all cases, the prisoners have an incentive to lie: for propaganda, sympathy, or legal claims. You seem completely unconcerned by this, demonstrating your default judgment against the United States, its Army, and its president in favor of our enemies.
Or were the "terrorists" trained in secret "al-Qaeda" camps to get naked on top of each other and then pretend that US soldiers were letting dogs rip thier skin off? "Isn't it already known that" the douche who started this comment wouldn't hold up for 10-seconds under the treatment that people who (according to the defense dept.) were actually just in the wrong place at the wrong time have endured at the illegal non-state prison camp at Guantanamo Bay? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by128.135.163.107 (talk • contribs) .
Torture was also used by the Germans during WWII since their cause was right to them. No ends justify such means, period. Costarican wikipedian.—The preceding unsigned comment was added byPabloalbv (talk • contribs) 16 Feb 2006.
Whether or not "terrorists" are told to claim torture whether or not they were is irrelevant, because the pictures clearly show that they were Sander9860 (talk) 05:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Who's "Hersh"?
The section titled "More evidence of torture", has a sentence about "...notably, Hersh would...", and it seems to be pretty relevent who this Hersh person is. Can anyone say who he is? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added byGronky (talk • contribs) .
American POWs in Vietnam were treated far worse than this and held captive much longer than this. Where was the world outcry then? Oh, right... they were actually soldiers in a war. And does anyone remember the Phoenix Program?Rlevse14:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
And how does that make the abuses of Abu Ghraib justifiable? By the way, this is not a world outcry. It is an encyclopedia article. --Rsmelt15:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
CommentSince a gutless anonymous user edited my comment, I'll not participate anymore. Rsmelt: I never said it justified it. Rlevse16:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: With all due respect, how else is your comment to be interpreted? Are you commenting on Abu Ghraib or Vietnam? You clearly imply that the prisoners at Abu Ghraib aren't "actually soldiers", and that they haven't been treated poorly enough to warrant an outcry.
The treatment of American POWs in Vietnam, while certainly brutal, has no bearing on our coverage of this issue. We aren't here to redress injustices. We're here to document events. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by151.199.192.106 (talk • contribs) .
America killed 1 million civilian people in Vietnam with Agent Orange chemical-genetical weapon. After the My Lai massacre, yankee should not expect any mercy from Viet Minh.
The extreme cruelty of the US military is obvious through history, extermination of the redskins, US land grabbings in Mexico, anti-Muslim atrocities in late 19th century Philippines, Drezden, Tokyo, Hirosima, Nagasaki, machine gunning civilians in Korea, napalm and burnings in Vietnam, the battleship shelling of Lebanon on jewish contract that killed 5000 and now this imperialistic war for Iraq's oil. It looks like Islam is the force that will eventually stand up against America on a global scale. With these images, they have the reason. 195.70.32.13608:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
We all need to stand up against brutality together, as unified members of the human race. We need to promote human dignity and compassion and empathy. Unfortunately, the Muslim world is fighting violence with violence, and is dominated by the extreme sects. This is not the way, it just perpetuates an endless cycle. We need calmer and cooler voices to prevail, a voice of moderation. Unfortunately, I don't see such a voice anywhere right now. 69.112.90.243
Sooo- we can get even with those mean old Viet Cong or North Vietnamese torturers by torturing Iraqis? Yeah that's the ticket!Edison05:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Curious regarding first paragraph
As to "alleged abuse and torture" - is there really anyone anywhere who can make an honest and reasoned case that no abuse or torture took place? Isn't the debate now over 1.) the degree of severity of the abuse and 2.) who was responsible? If some people think there was abuse but maybe not torture, we could say "abuse and alleged torture". I really don't think we have justification at this point, given all the evidence that's come to light, to continue to cast the abuse as a mere allegation. -Kasreyn17:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, I see that there appears to be a minor revert war already in progress over this issue. Can I get some commentary here by serious editors over whether "alleged" should be removed? -Kasreyn17:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The torture is never over. The American soldiers will keep on practicing their sadistic pleasures over children and women alike. What perverts... —The preceding unsigned comment was added byLebanonChild (talk • contribs) .
I think the "abuse and alleged torture" suggestion makes the most sense. Abuse is obvious. But check Wikipedia's own definition of torture. IEdML04:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Prison is too good for these non-humans. The soldiers who were imprisoned are only a few of many... God only knows what's going on over there... It just makes me sick, they better leave our lands soon enough, or there will be 100 Bin Laden's in the years to come...—The preceding unsigned comment was added byLebanonChild (talk • contribs) 17 Feb 2006.
WP Commons?
Wouldn't the photos concerned all be Public Domain, being taken by US soldiers during commission of their duties, etc? I'm not sure why we don't have the photographs hosted in a WP Commons gallery >:\ Sherurcij(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)19:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I think there's a clear argument that unless their "duties" were photography, the copyright belongs to the camera operator, not the government. Some of them were released as evidence, which muddies the water, but some of the new photographs circulated privately before surfacing in Australia. --Dhartung | Talk23:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
As the WP Commons template suggests, Pictures taken by U.S. military personnel on duty are ineligible for copyright, unless the photographer successfully claims that the photographs were not taken as part of his or her official duties. The photographers of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse photos have not made this claim, and have in fact denied it under oath., so they are indeed public domain. Anyways, I went and added a bunch to Commons, and I see they're linked now, so cheers Sherurcij(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)04:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
more POV issues
Does anyone else think there's POV here?
"The resulting political scandal damaged the credibility and public image of the United States and its allies in the prosecution of ongoing military operations in the Iraq War, and was seized upon by critics of U.S. foreign policy, who argued it was representative of a broader American attitude and policy of disrespect and violence toward Arabs."
To say critics "seized upon" the situation makes it sound like they're vultures who see the situation as an opportunity rather than a tragedy. Sarge Baldy21:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I changed the sentence to this:
"The resulting political scandal damaged the credibility and public image of the United States and its allies in the prosecution of ongoing military operations in the Iraq War, and some critics of U.S. foreign policy argued that it was representative of a broader American attitude and policy of disrespect and violence toward Arabs."
I see a lot of debate on this page about the censorship and censored page, but I would like to question the number and frequency. There is currently no part of this page, when scrolling through it, where a graphic image is not to my right. I realize that these pictures are important to the article, but this article is simply blanketed by them. There are a lot of gruesome things that have wikipedia articles, but they do not have pictures of them like an article carpet. Also, the positioning of the pictures is not in sync with the text on the left (particularily the international law section) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by66.188.253.213 (talk • contribs) .
Too many? Not enough! Who would have believed the truth about Auschwitz with photos of the piles of corpses? And a block of text about lynching doesn't begin to have the visceral effect of a photo of a corpse dangling from a tree. Omitting pictures in this article is the pictorial equivalent of "weasel words." --Michael K. Smith (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Feces picture probably a little too much
The picture of the prisoner with feces all over his body and face probably doesn't have a place in a wikipedia article, so I removed it. Perhaps just a mention of what the picture was would be suitable. Chuck10:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
do you really think that photo is excessive, given the context? Much worse photos have been released. I haven't seen them on many US web sites, but I live in Australia, and here they're playing on TV - on SBS, a government funded public broadcaster. Two nights ago I saw on TV an image from the latest leak of Abu Ghraib photos of an interrogation cell in which the CIA had tortured a prisoner to death. The walls and ceiling were entirely coated with blood. I saw a close-up of a prisoner with his throat slit. I saw images of men who had clearly just been anally raped, bleeding profusely. I think that if you follow this issue, you'll see them too, and this image of a man covered in faeces will start to look very tame. Viveka13:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
To much? If the truth is rough, the pictures are gonna be rough. I hope to see the pictures Viveka explained on Wikipedia soon.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by130.241.18.31 (talk • contribs) 16 Feb 2006.
A 12 year old getting raped and murdered is rough too...you hope to see those pictures on Wikipedia soon? Chuck18:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The name of this article is "Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse." It should be pretty obvious that this article is going to cover some pretty nasty stuff -- namely, torture and prisoner abuse. --Descendall14:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I think this topic has been perhaps beaten to death already, but I would like to throw in my two cents. I think that the article is about the torture scandal, but that does not mean that we need to see pictures of all of the torture (or, arguably, any of it). There are many graphic images of John F. Kennedy after being assassinated, even on the cover of some rock albums. Nonetheless, the Wikipedia article on JFK's asassination sensibly omits these photos. The Charles Manson article sensibly does not include any photos of the murdered victims. I sense that these photos were not left out of the articles because of taste (which is subjective as well as irrelevant in an encyclopedia) or relevance. There are no shortage of graphic Holocaust photos in the public domain, but I have seen much more graphic photos in high school history books than the photos in the Wikipedia article on the WWII Holocaust. From the comments posted here,I assume that the authors of the article feel that the photos are necessary because (a) the photos show the extent of the abuse, and thus the reason for the abuse scandal's importance and (b) the release of the personal photos constituted a large part of the story. Nonetheless, I feel that the abuse is the scandal; the photos themselves are not the scandal. Therefore, do we really need to see any photos of feces or abuse? Perhaps the iconic image with the black hood and electrical wires is sufficient. If readers want to see more graphic photos of torture or death, they can use a search engine and the terms "Abu Ghraib Torture" (or for that matter, "holocaust", "Manson", and "JFK".) I hope that I am not too conventional by saying that if Britannica wouldn't print the photos in their encyclopedia, then maybe we shouldn't include them either. If anything, Britannica (the bound version) should print such pictures ratherthan Wikipedia, because a reader of a print edition does not necessarily have access to the Internet; on the other hand, Wikipedia readers do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.54.15.40 (talk) 16:20:42, August 19, 2007 (UTC)
Image Perception
Why is ok to present pictures of extreme torture and abuse yet not pornographical on adult articles of Wikipedia??—The preceding unsigned comment was added byKing of the Dancehall (talk • contribs) 16 Feb 2006.
There are all sorts of pictures of nudity on wikipedia. A few of them are actually screen shots from porns. This has been debated endlessly, and the result has always been that wikipedia should not be censored for the protection of minors. The scandal at Abu Ghraib had nearly as much to do with the leaked pictures of torture as they did with the actual torture, and thus these pictures are extremely significant to the article. --Descendall16:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Well I understand that, I'm not debating on having the pictures censored or removed since it is demonstrated in a factual and educational page on Wikipedia, yet a "Warning" should be labeled on the top of the page (incase minors or sensitive people view the article). There are too many pictures of torture and I believe people get the idea of the horrors that took place at Abu Ghraib prison. I find pictures of torture far worst than pornography (sex is natural). In fact pornography is so accessible I have no problem with it.--King of the Dancehall16:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe that if there is going to be these pictures, then this warning should stay on the top of the page. Chuck18:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I've altered the wording, since it is clearly wikipedia policy that censorship for minors is not our business. I've altered it to simply warn that there are explicit images of abuse and torture.
You should be advised that if wikipedia makes the mistake of censoring for minors in *some* articles, then we open ourselves up to legal liability over *other* articles. It has to be either all or none, and due to the editing nature of wikipedia it can't be all. Therefore it must be none.
I think a good solution would be to create a picture-free version of the page. To be honest, they turn my stomach, too. Does anyone support creating an image-free copy? -Kasreyn18:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I've done just that, as well as put a link to the image free version on the original. This shouldn't be too far out of line, considering many people do not want to see those pictures when they learn about the situation, regradless of Wikipedia's censorship policies. Now viewers have an option not to see them. Good idea Kasreyn Chuck19:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
And I have listed your page for deletion for the fourth time. I don't know when the admins are going to get around to finally locking this prohibited censorship fork, but I'm guessing that it will be this time. --Descendall01:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused. Is this (the creation of an image-free version) something that's been proposed and done before? I'm new to the discussion page on this article. Was I naive to think it was a good idea? Respectfully, Kasreyn22:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
There have been a number of censorship forks, including at least two of this very page. All have been deleted, censorship forks are against policy. Wikipedia is not censored, period. --Descendall08:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
The dissemination of information is Wikipedia's reason for existence. As our popularity soars, it's becoming and important resource for that. I've noticed that a central collection of the images, if one exists, is hard to find - news reports and blogs use just handfuls - and we could help by providing one. Opinions? --Kizor19:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
We should make such a repository, but it shouldn't be on this page; a representative sample on this page is sufficient. Viveka
Do copyright laws allow the creation of such a collection on Wikipedia? Note that the Akkari-Laban dossier is here in its entirety - to my untrained eye the fair use claims made for its inclusion seem valid in this case. --Kizor19:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
These images are clearly fair use/fair dealing for the purposes of news reporting. Also according to annotations on images like File:Abu-ghraib-leash unblurred face.jpgthis one
"Pictures taken by U.S. military personnel on duty are ineligible for copyright, unless the photographer successfully claims that the photographs were not taken as part of his or her official duties. The photographers of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse photos have not made this claim, and have in fact denied it under oath." Viveka
There are probably over a hundred images now, as well as videos - the SBS report released another 60 just days ago, Too many to fit in a single article, but they should be collected somewhere. Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse reports/Gallery seems as good a place as any to show them, but there is no apparent link to it at the moment from this article. There's a link at the bottom of the article now which seems like the appropriate place to collect the images -
Thanks, Descendall, Viveka! They naturally shouldn't be inserted into this article - that'd destroy it - but a subpage sounds ideal and the Gallery meets the need excellently. After the database lecture I'll dash to immediately after writing this message, I'll hunt images and gather them there. Please replace lower-quality photos if you have higher-quality ones. I think we should also favor the uncropped, unblurred and uncensored versions. --Kizor06:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
The case Harman shows what unleashed viragos are able to commit.I would not wonder if they are producing snuff porn for commercial purposes , too, in Abu Graibh."She " is in the best tradition of Elizabeth Bathory and Irma Grese, the Nazi monster, hanged in 1946 in Poland.My best wishes also to assistant professor Steve Rubenstein in Ohio, who systematically denies the existence of viragos suppressing real anthropology in the wikipedia due to all too obvious reasons.Superfluous to say that Harman is from the same aggressive "Teutonic master people" as Irma Grese racially: the
Nordic race.I'll be back ... 80.138.192.17400:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank You
I don't really have anything to add to the debate, I just wanted to say Thank You to all the Wikipedians who had worked on thsi article. I am so glad we have a democratic forum on which this sort of thing can be portrayed. I was sickened by the new photos, and terrified; some of them, I am thinking of those which include the dead Iraqi and the smiling army personnel, are disturbingly reminiscent - to me - of the dehumanizing attitudes that must have been employed by guards at death camps during the holocaust. It is clearly dangerous if we assume - as I always did - that these sort of attitudes had died out in all but the most extreme groups. Thanks once again. --James Kemp00:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you,too , Mr Kemp
Thank you, Mr. Kemp, for your suport and appreciation. We are facing dark ages I fear. So, let us hold in our heart the Beethovian vision of the community of loving humans which is again so cruelly betrayed in Abu Graibh.Let us pray for the victims as they are not dead as long we do not forget them. One must ask who the real terrorists are. Of course, the so-called terrorists have not billions of dollars for media brain washing.One may watch the horrifying American hardcore sexploitation film "Nazi love camp 27" which is getting more and more similar to the horror atmosphere in Abu Graibh.I'll be back...80.138.192.17401:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Warning unilaterally deleted
I thought things were supposed to be discussed when it came to making decisions like lifting a warning. I know we discussed it when we put it on there. I think Administartors are abusing their power. This is not censorship. It's a warning that there's some fucked up pictures in the article. You've already gotten rid of the image free version. At least give people the opportunity to not see the pictures before they get absolutely grossed out. Chuck02:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I completely agree. The warning is not cencorship; it is comparable to when newscasters (I'm thinking of UK news here, don't know if you get this in the States etc) say "the following report contains footage which some viewers may find disturbing". In this sense, keeping the warning at the top of the page allows people to make up their own mind as to whether they see the images or not. I really don't see what the problem is in keeping the warning and the version of the page without the images, as long as it is clear that the images have been removed. In a sense, removing the "no image" version is itself a form of censorship, as it prevents the presentation of a certain version of the article. To preempt the counterargument that "certain versions" of articles are always denied presentation (i.e., articles which have been re-edited), I think it should be noted that these articles are always available as part of the article history - the "no image" version of this article is not.--James Kemp01:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I just stumbled upon this page and found the warning more offensive than the pictures. Pixelized representations of photographs don't torture people; people torture people. It's also obvious that the box is ridiculously oversized (it takes up half a friggin' page!!) and internally contradictory: it says "For details and discussion of this dispute, see the talk page.", but the rest of the template doesn't mention a dispute! The rest is merely a statement of (unnecessary, but accurate) fact; if the template is meant to state that there's a dispute about the article's content or images (or about the template itself :)), that should be mentioned instead, and it should be mentioned on the talk page, not on the article page. The warning is condescending, absurd, ugly, and unnecessary. If anything, it should only be included after its achieved consensus for adding to the article; it shouldn't require consensus to remove a contentious userbox from articlespace, at least until the dispute is resolved! Anyway, in the meantime, I've compacted it a bit by bringing it more in line with a typical Template:NPOV. -Silence02:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
And I've removed it. Who would load a page called "Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse" without expecting to see photos of prisoners being abused (and maybe tortured) at Abu Ghraib? We can let our readers judge what is and isn't offensive to them. If they suddenly don't like what they're seeing they can hit Alt-F4 and be gone. — Feb. 17, '06 [03:07] <freakofnurxture|talk>
This is a current events article, not an article entitle Penis. People will come to this article expecting to find out about the situation, as it is national news. They are not neccesarily going to visit the page to see the pictures, nor will most people expect to see the pictures. I believe some disgression is advised being this is such a popular topic, both with sickos who want to view disturbing images, and with people interested in the news. Thank you very much. Chuck03:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and as part of a major current event, these photographs have already been broadcasted on the news, published in magazines and newspapers, and diseminated virtually everywhere. What makes us so special in terms of standards? The fact that, on Wikipedia, the readers are the writers? Better yet, what makes the photos themselves so special? The fact that they show middle easterners being abused? Or the fact that they show Americans misbehaving? Neither is a compelling argument for censorship. — Feb. 17, '06 [03:30] <freakofnurxture|talk>
But there is no censorship here...just a warning. All of the pictures are still here and people can see the Iraqis getting abused and the Americans abusing them, but now there's the warning (which without it would be censoring the fact that there is disturbing images (which we can all agree upon)) which allows people to be there own censors, and leave the page before they see the pictures if they want. You're correct the readers are the writers. But not all of them are. For instance, if you google search "Abu Ghraib", the fifth result is this article. People who probably never even heard of Wikipedia will be seeing this article, and at no point when you click on the link (other than the warning I added) do you see that there are graphic images. In fact you can't even see the Wikipedia disclaimer about images when you first click the link. So, I believe considering the audience, and the fact that the pictures are still very easily accesible (by simply scrolling down), a warning is not too much to ask for. Chuck03:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia already has a general content disclaimer. It is true that most casual readers won't look at that, but that's their fault. Why have a general disclaimer, if not to keep from having to put individual disclaimers on every potentially objectionable article? If this gets a disclaimer, what other articles do? Who decides what might shock someone? No, this is not a precedent which should be set, and a splice is simply absurd - what happens when one version is updated? - not to mention it explicitly goes against WP:NOT. --Elmer Clark03:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not a matter of them not viewing the general disclaimer before they read the article (how would they do that anyway when the google link takes them directly to the article, not a disclaimer. Pornography websites have disclaimers on the top of a page before you enter, and news organizations make an announcement before they show disturbing images like, say...images from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. This is certainly not censorship. It does create a problem as to which articles should have a disclaimer, but this one should, or else the grotesque pics should be taken down. Chuck04:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't buy the argument that this is somehow different than Penis. I'm sure that there is a picture of a penis at Penis, just as most people would assume that there is a picture of the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse. Likewise, although I've never been to Ku Klux Klan or Nazism, I have a feeling that both of those articles have pictures of the things that the Klan and the Nazis did... things that I consider to be "offensive." Anyone with any common sense could figure that out. In any event, the whole thing becomes POV because what is offensive to you may not be offensive to the next person. It also raises all sorts of cultural problems, seeing as Wikipedia is international. For example, suppose someone starts tagging thousands of pages with something that says "This article contains pictures of women's hair. Certain viewers may find this to be sinful." Are you going to go along with that? Or is the western point of view the controlling one? When all is said and done, it's just best not to go down that road. --Descendall05:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it's not censorship. It's just a terrible idea. Something doesn't have to be censorship to be useless and biased. By putting a content warning here, we implicitly endorse the content of every other article on Wikipedia, implying that this one is universally offensive and no other page is, and suggesting that people who are offended by any other page have a right to complain or order us to add a disclaimer like the one here! A double-standard here will cause nothing but more trouble. Let the article speak for itself: the images are small and plain enough that they shouldn't cause any more shock or horror than, say, Holocaust, which we can surely agree doesn't need a disclaimer notice warning about relevant, illustrative photos in its pages, horrifying though they may be. The same reasoning for that article applies here! And even if we do someday have templates like this for horrific articles, they should only be added after there is consensus for them. Wikipedia is run by consensus, not individual attempts to rewrite Wikipedia policy on a random specific article. Propose a new Wikipedia policy or guideline or whatnot for including a template like this on any article where there is a general agreement that one is needed. (Which there isn't here anyway.) Until then, putting the template on a page is an embarrassment to Wikipedia and a disservice to our readers. Would Britannica put a garish, childish warning notice about an illustrated Abu-Ghraib article in its contents? -Silence04:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
"We shall judge a people due to its behaviour towards the dead" - Pericles
Don't hide the incriminating photographs you Nazi Americans!!!!!!
If the photos are graphic its because the horrible deeds committed by the deranges,sadistic perverted soldiers are also equally disturing.I think the Yanks should stop trying to cover up these issues.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by202.177.246.3 (talk • contribs) 17 Feb 2006.
Noone's trying to hide the pictures. We're just trying to warn people about what they're going to see. If they don't want to see "explicit images of abuse and torture", then they have the option to not scroll down, before they are forced to see the pictures. Chuck04:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
The man in this picture appears to me to have a banana in his anus. I think that if this is the case, the article should definately reflect it, because this would be the most clear-cut sexual abuse that we have documentation on. However, I'm not exactly sure that it is indeed a banana, and I don't want to write anything about it unles I'm sure. Does anyone think that this is not a case of sodomy by banana? If so, what is going on in the picture? --Descendall06:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I would guess it is a banana, but I would use the term "foreign object", because it's hard to tell what it actually is. It could be a yellow broom handle or some similar object. I do agree the article should mention the photographic evidence of sodomy at Abu Ghraib, but I do not believe the article needs to be that specific: in other words, it isn't necessary to specifically mention bananas. I also want to go on the record as saying how horrible this is.
The thing is that although I think it's pretty obvious that it is indeed in his anus, I guess it could be just resting up against it. Before I put anything in the article, I'd like to know. Did any of the court martialed soldiers admit to or get convicted of specifically putting something in a prisoner's rectum? --Descendall07:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Apparantly, the leaked Criminal Investigation Command files do indeed note this picture as that of a man with a banana in his rectum. --Descendall04:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
could you copy the text of that reference here please? so we don't have to deal with people saying "Oh yes, no argument, the bloke's got fruit in his arse, but he might have put it there himself"... Thanks!!! User:Pedant02:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
User:FlareNUKE has moved this page several times. At least once he moved it by blanking a page and cutting and pasting the page somewhere else, thus screwing up the edit history. User:FlareNUKE has a history of making wild page moves that essentially amount to vandalism. As a result, this page is all over the place. I think that we should decide what name this article should have, and move it there. --Descendall03:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I also support moving back. The Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse was chosen as a compromise name by consensus following a discussion. If User:FlareNUKE has anything to contribute to that discussion, they should do so instead of cut-and-paste moving it. I see no possible justification for the new name though, which implies the prision was abused (e.g.: spraypainted the walls) instead of prisoners being tortured in it. --Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesleytalkcontrib02:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
And I dispute the neutrality of this article. The phrase: "The U.S. Administration and its defenders" proves my point. There is the automatic assumption the "administration" is guilty of something and needs to be "defended" as opposed to just simply "supported"... --Jayzel17:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment "Defense" does not assume guilt, it assumes accusation. Since the administration has been accused of wrongdoing by various people/newspapers/groups, it makes sense to use the word "defense". I don't think it's POV at all. Makemi19:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
All indications are that the orders for torture and abuse came from the highest possible levels. There is the thinly veiled torture memo that our dear Attorney General wrote as well as testimony and other documents that all came out about this and new details are released almost monthly on torture scandals both at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.Sukiari20:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
comment It is not POV to state a fact. If you are in the US then it might appear as if the U.S. Administration is just trying to protect our freedom, but if you are anywhere else in the world... cutting to the chase, if you are in the US, please actively attempt to deprogram yourself. Face the fact that the U.S. Administration has done all sorts of things in the last few years that would have Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson and the like spinning like tops in their graves. User:Pedant02:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
AMNESTY POV
Is there any evidence to suggest that Amnest International has, in fact, been "broadly critical" of the war in Iraq? It is certainly not AI policy to be so, I suggest that this is politicly motivated vandalism, and I shall remove it. Pelegius18:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Application of the {npov} tag
One thing that makes me cross is when someone slaps an {npov} tag on an article, without fulfilling their responsibility to initiate a discussion of the instances of the expression of a biased point of view. The guy who placed the tag did offer an explanation of sorts. But it is not a very serious explanation.
The critic writes that the use of word "defenders" instead of "supporters" illustrates the "automatic assumption the administration is guilty of something"
I fail to see how refering to those who defend the administration as "supporters" instead of "defenders" would be more biased - or less biased. I think the critic who applied the tag is unaware of their own unconscious assumptions.
If a patriotic American realizes that there are those who challenge one of their President's policies they then have a choice. Once they educate themselves about the issue they can choose to support the President's policies. Or they could choose to oppose the President's policies; Or they could decide the issue wasn't important to them, and leave the President and his supporters to fight it out with his challengers without taking a stand.
But the critic writes as if the only choice was "support". They seem to have forgotten that American critics of the Bush administration's policy can disagree with the President and yet be critical of his policies. They seem to have forgotten that agreement with the current President's policies is not a requirement for an American to be regarded as a patriot.
A single two sentence paragraph falls far short of the obligation an article's critic should feel before the place a tag like {npov} on a large article like this one.
I encourage them to put some serious effort into naming specific instances of bias. And I encourage them to offer serious, considered arguments for each of their instances.
I am going to repeat that I think neither the choice of the word "defenders" or "supporters" shows a bias, one way or the other. Tagging the entire article, giving only this inadequate explanation falls short of the seriousness I would like to expect from other wikipedia contributors. -- Geo Swan20:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Valid and compelling reasoning. You don't have to be a supporter of George W. Bush or his policies or administration to defend him on this specific case, nor are all supporters of GWB or his policies or administration also defenders of him with regards to the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse trial. Neither term is inherently POVed, as long as they're used accurately; if anything, "defenders" is less POVed than "supporters" for the reasons given above. -Silence20:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a ridiculous NPOV tag. In a criminal trial, the "defense" doesn't assume its guilt -- in fact it assumes its innoncence. In a game of basketball, the defense doesn't assume that the offense is going to make a basket, in fact they work to prevent that. I could go on and on. If the guy who put the tag on doesn't show up to defend it, we should take it off. --Descendall20:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The "administration" has not been accused of a crime by anyone one of any importance regarding Abu Ghraib abuse. Naysayers on the internet do not count. Individual soldiers were accused and convicted. Therefore my complaint stands. --Jayzel02:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
P.S. If you look at the paragraph in question: "The U.S. Administration and its defenders argued that the abuses were isolated acts committed by low-ranking personnel, while critics claimed that authorities either ordered or implicitly condoned the abuses and demanded the resignation of senior Bush administration officials."
This quote is contrasting the idea that the administration is guilty of committing crimes or allowing crimes to happen with the administration and others (weasel word) defending themselves against the allegations. That is a POV. The paragraph also mentions critics (weasel word. Who? Only one rant by Al Gore with no supporting evidence is given. "Critics" should be changed to "a lone defeated political opponent")
Now, look at this quote: "methods explicitly mentioned as being sanctioned are sleep deprivation, hooding prisoners, playing loud music, removing all detainees' clothing, forcing them to stand in so-called "stress positions," and the use of dogs. The author also claimed that the Pentagon had limited use of the techniques by requiring specific authorization from the chain of command. The author identifies "physical beatings, sexual humiliation or touching" as being outside the Executive Order. This was the first internal evidence since the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse affair became public in April, 2004 that forms of abusive coercion and torture of captives had been mandated by the President".
Where on God's Earth do you get "torture being mandated by the president" from an EO giving guidelines on interrogation methods to be used? By calling "hooding prisoners and playing loud music" torture you are demeaning all real victims of torture and, most importantly here, violates the NPOV policy, in my opinion. --Jayzel03:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Have you ever been hooded? Do you know what it feels like to have your oxygen level go down faster the more you struggle, but go down inevitably for as long as you continue to breath? P0M00:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
One more thing: I personally think this page's name should be changed to Abu Ghraib scandal with subheadings dealing with Abuse and Torture because reading through the text I find very few examples of anything even remotely constituting "torture". Perhaps by seperating the charges into categories there would be a lot less animosity (sp?) toward this article. Overall, it is surprisingly not bad. --Jayzel03:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I might force somebody to do 50 or 100 pushups, and I might be able to do that number myself. But to an unfit person the situation could be entirely different. It might even result in a heart attack. If I am on the receiving end of things, any little inconvenience might get called torture. If I am on the delivery end of things, anything short of death might not be considered torture. Drawing boundary lines on both ends but closer to the middle would be more useful for communicating information, but different people will draw lines in different places. So the idea of having a catalog of what is actually being done to people would give the article a much more objective stance.
In the past there have been experiments done to measure degrees of subjective discomfort. If I remember correctly, intense infrared light was focused on an inch-diameter area on a subject's arm and the power of the lamp was gradually brought up until the artificially induced pain measured the pain of things like the worst moments during labor, etc. It should be possible to gain the measure of things like the application of the most painful aikido hold, but those measurements would be "for the moment." It is difficult to see how one figures in a multiplication factor. Perhaps one can tolerate a certain pain for a minute but will go mad in the pain continues for an hour or some longer period of time.
I suppose that those of us who believe that, e.g., delivering a rolling electrical potential to the nerve associated with the "crazy bone" is not torture, should be willing to serve as volunteer guinea pigs to help assess costs/benefits ratios, i.e., how much risk in losing the asset is involved in pumping the asset for information using these non-torturous means of encouraging compliance by delivery of negative incentives. P0M00:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. How about it, Jayzel? If it's such a walk in the park, would you mind trying it out yourself? Or are you all talk? -Kasreyn03:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
If I ever get caught on a battlefield by an enemy soldier, I'll let you know how things went, smarty pants. Question for you: What is your definition of "interrogation method" and compare and contrast it with your definition of "torture". And why do the two of you reject the suggestion the allegations be seperated into categories oof "abuse" and "torture"? Is it because you are afraid people will see that the actual allegations of "torture" are so few? --Jayzel10:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
No, it's because I believe all of the events in question were abuse. (It seems clear to me that, systemically, Iraqi prisoners were regarded and treated as subhuman by their captors.) If you oppose "torture", then oppose it in the article title. I'd say the article title should give a summary of what will be contained within. Currently it says the article is about "Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse". Therefore, non-abuse activities at Abu Ghraib, such as the weekly bingo game and calls home to mom and pop in Ohio, are off-topic and should not be included. The only remaining question is, which activities qualify as "torture".
My definition of "interrogation method" is anything done to elicit information from a person. There are a lot of ways this can be done without abuse. For instance, you have a lawyer present, and you sit down with the person, and you take their statement. If they refuse to speak, then you note that down and return them to their cell. My definition of "torture" is any application of cruel, degrading, or inhumane treatment to a being. I'd define it more narrowly if I didn't know that the Alberto Gonzaleses of this world are always looking for a loophole to avoid having to be ethical. -Kasreyn12:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I know this isn't going to make sense to you, Jayzel, but you're in an extreme minority on this issue. The vast majority of people in the world believe that what went on at Abu Ghraid was at a minimum abuse, and possibly also torture. The argument is not over whether the actions at Abu Ghraib were delightful party games or abuse. The argument, world-wide (except in your mind), is over how bad the abuse really was.
Your reading comprehension skills are atrocious. Where did I say there wasn't abuse? I completely agree with your statement "Abu Ghraid was at a minimum abuse, and possibly also torture". My argument is that the actual allegations of "torture" are so few and thin that this article should be renamed Abu Ghraib Scandal with subheadings detailing abuse and torture to put the various allegations into perspective. --Jayzel10:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
You might want to check out a book from your local library. It's called "The Gulag Archipelago", by Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn. He was a political prisoner in Stalin's prison system (he was arrested for making critical statements about Stalin), and the book describes the Stalinist penal system in great detail. The section on interrogation methods you might find particularly interesting, since it reads more or less like this very article... The same methods are used, because they're very effective (sleeplessness, loud noises, discomfortable situations). Can you honestly tell me, Jayzel, that having our military prisons run Stalinist-fashion doesn't give you even a moment's pause? Are you really that willing to suspend your reasoning and cling to this belief that "America does not torture", simply because a man who has admitted he doesn't have all the facts says so? I'm very interested in your reply. -Kasreyn03:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I am well aware of The Gulag Archipelago. I read all of the volumns 12 years ago. Thanks for the reading suggestions anyhow. Once again I ask you for your definition of "interrogation methods" against enemy soldiers picked up on the battlefield and compare and contrast it with your definition of "torture". Then compare those two definitions with your definition of "political prisoners". --Jayzel10:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll make a deal with you. I'll do your compare and contrast, if you compare and contrast the methods known to be okayed by Gonzales (that is, anything that doesn't cause lasting physical harm) with the Stalinist methods of Gulag Archipelago (sleeplessness, etc.). Not all torture leaves a mark, a wound, or a broken bone. All torture is mental in nature, it's just the more obvious kinds that use physical beatings to cause that mental anguish. There are other kinds - such as the "interrogation methods" employed at Abu Ghraib - which skip the physical middleman and go straight to the mental anguish. That's not only torture, it's a much more effective and pure form of it, as the NKVD learned. So: quid pro quo? -Kasreyn12:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
This is my last comment on the subject for the time being. I'm busy with other issues at the moment. Look at these quotes from the Congressional Research Service report Lawfulness of Interrogation Techniques under the Geneva Conventions, Page 12 [10] (PDF file):
"Torture. Torture is proscribed by all four of the Geneva Conventions and additional Protocols,24 as well as customary international law.25 Torture, which either mental or physical, is not explicitly defined in the Conventions. Modern tribunals may look to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) definition of torture:"
For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which
severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.
does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental lawful sanctions.27"
"The International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has identified
following elements of the crime of torture in a situation of armed conflict: (i) . . . the infliction, by act or omission, of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental; in addition (ii) this act or omission must be intentional;"
My Comment: Therefore forcing prisoners to be naked, simulate sex acts, etc., are not considered "torture" by the legal community. It may be abuse, but not torture. Your opinion otherwise is your POV, not law, and to include it in the article is violating the NPOV policy here at Wikipedia.
Now look at this quote from the report:
"The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever,
whether committed by civilian or by military agents:
(a) violence to the life, health, or physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular:(i) murder;(ii) torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental; (iii) corporal punishment; and (iv) mutilation;
(b) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment,
enforced prostitution and any form of indecent assault;
(c) the taking of hostages;
(d) collective punishments; and
(e) threats to commit any of the foregoing acts."
"The United States has not ratified Protocol I, but article 75 is widely considered to be
universally binding as customary international law."
My note: According to the geneva Convection itself, acts of humiliation are not considered torture. They are listed seperately as forms of abuse and the U.S. hasn't even signed on to this agreement so it technically hasn't commited any violations of international law. --Jayzel15:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Just a clarification -- the US has signed and ratified the ICCPR, so it is a violation of international law to subject someone to "torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment"--Descendall11:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, and I'd like to apologize first off for mistaking your views (vis a vis your "reading comprehension" remark). I continue to disagree over whether the activities involved were torture.
First off, the CAT definition of torture is ridiculous. Clearly the work of a committee, in my opinion. I'd first like to deconstruct the UNCAT's view on torture. Then I'll explain why even under the UNCAT, I feel the activities qualified as torture.
"when such pain or suffering is inflicted by... a public official" What a wonderful loophole; just offer up the torturers as "rogue agents" and you can then honestly claim no torture ever occurred... this section is custom-written to help nations escape charges of torture. It's beyond me why the UN thinks only public officials ever commit torture.
"does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental lawful sanctions" This is too subjective to be workable, the escape clause is a mile wide. Inherent? Incidental? Are there any two people anywhere in the world who can agree on what is an acceptable amount of "incidental pain or suffering" arising from lawful sanctions?
Therefore in my opinion the UNCAT is a work of unmitigated bullshit. My definition is a lot shorter and simpler for this specific reason; the more verbiage you add, the more loopholes you leave. When a little boy tortures a cat, do we investigate his motives before we decide it was torture? Do we try to figure out if he was interrogating the cat, or if the pain and suffering of the cat was "incidental and arising from" legitimate cat-hurting activities? Of course not. We take the cat away from the little boy. Torture is deliberately inflicting suffering on another (typically for personal gratification, though this is generally rationalized in some way). This is what I call the "common sense" answer.
Your first comment, that the sex simulation etc are not torture, is clearly contradicted by the clause on "intimidating or coercing", which was clearly done in order to get the Iraqi men to simulate homosexual acts. The first paragraph of the UNCAT, horrendously ill-written hunk of garbage that it is, is a run-on sentence seperated only by commas, so it's not possible to definitively say which clauses might be sub-clauses and only effective upon certain others. Therefore I am forced to assume that the definition "the term “torture” means any act by which..." is modified by every succeeding clause, including "or intimidating or coercing him or a third person,". Strangely, this makes the UNCAT even more hardcore than my own personal definition of torture, since I personally don't consider all forms of coercion to be torture. Apparently they do, though, so therefore the prisoners were tortured under UNCAT standards.
Your second comment strikes me as nonsensical, so I have to assume I must have misunderstood you. You say "acts of humiliation are not considered torture.", yet in (b) you quote "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment...", which is "prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever, whether committed by civilian or by military agents".
So I'm having a hard time seeing how your point is not flatly contradicted by your own source! Are you trying to tell me you don't think "outrages upon personal dignity" is not synonymous with "humiliation"? Being forced to simulate sexual acts was not an "outrage upon personal dignity"? You've earned my respect already, please don't throw it away by taking such a completely nonsensical stance.
I must admit to being very confused. You have provided sources which seem to do nothing but disprove your own claims. The UNCAT, though a horribly worded and leaky definition, does manage to cover the activities at Abu Ghraib, despite all its efforts to bend over backwards for despots with escape clauses. The Geneva Convention, of course, I have never had a quibble with, considering it one of the more noble attempts ever made at establishing international ethics standards.
I'd also just like to take the time to rebut a point you made much earlier, in reply to someone else. You claimed that calling the Abu Ghraib activities "torture" demeans U.S. soldiers who experienced physical beatings, for instance in Viet Nam. I strongly disagree, and think this sort of silencing tactic is about the lowest someone can go in this debate. If you're so concerned over whether calling Abu Ghraid "torture" offends real soldiers who have been through "real torture", how about you check up on what Sen. McCain thinks on the issue? Does he now deserve censure for "demeaning all real victims of torture"? But wouldn't that be demeaning him, a "real" victim of torture?
I must conclude that you're not examining the facts with an eye towards actually understanding what torture is, but that instead your goal is to find a conceptual and legal framework to support your pre-decided notion that what the U.S. did was not torture. As long as you continue to accept only the facts that support you, we're not going to be able to see eye-to-eye. Respectfully, -Kasreyn07:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
P.S.S. (Sorry, I'm on a delayed roll) In the reactions section why are there no reactions from Iraqis themselves? They were the most affected, yet there are no quotes whatsoever. I'm going to bed shortly so I will have to look this up some other time, but I distinctly rember reading quotes from Iraqi citizens saying basically "Big deal". If there were Iraqis who felt differently, forgive me. At least show me the quotes to prove me wrong. --Jayzel03:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
One last point, I SWEAR! :) Look at this quote from the article: "Alberto Gonzales, who described provisions of the Geneva Conventions that provide prisoners "commissary privileges, scrip, athletic uniforms, and scientific instruments" as "quaint," and wrote that the "new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners," was nominated by President Bush as the Attorney General of the United States, the nation's chief law-enforcement official. He was confirmed on February 3, 2005."
This is borderline fraud. The quote from Gonzales about "a new paradigm" refered to the fight against Al Qaeda not towrd the war in Iraq. --Jayzel04:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the struggle against Al Qaeda? ;-)
If the remark was misconceptualized and you can find a citation to back your contention up, then it would be very helpful to correct the record.
It should not be that difficult to find reactions from Iraqis, either. The only problem would be how to determine whose opinions on the matter are suitable to this article. My usual preference would be to get to know a large number of people, not push them for a reaction, but listen for the reactions that do come out. In this case, the people are not in a situation where most of us can talk to them. Are any independent firms doing opinion surveys? Are there Iraqi elder statesmen, people who are old enough to be on the sidelines and who have a track record for not being in anybody's pocket? And do we have any way of hearing what they have to say? P0M00:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
LOL! Articles on Wikipedia are currently required to back their allegations up with references and in-line citations. It's not the responsibility of readers of said articles to back up their thoughts about the articles. I am busy with my own projects right now. Perhaps if I have time in the future I'll come back here and try to fix the numerous issues with this subject. I'm afraid, right now, I don't have the time to deal with the many problems here. --Jayzel10:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
From what I've heard, the Abu Ghraib abuse has sparked a great deal of protest in the Islamic world community. I, too, find the lack of quotes startling - thanks for pointing that out. I'll see if I can find any to add their viewpoint, to improve the article. -Kasreyn03:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Never mind the "Islamic world community". Their opinions are no more important than left-leaning politicians and newspapers in the West. This article needs reaction from the Iraqi people themselves. Both good and bad. --Jayzel10:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Historical abuse
Why does this article contain no mention of the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse before the invasion (the first sentence implies torture began there in 2003)! This either needs to be added or the article needs renaming to something like "Abu Ghraib torture by US soldiers" IMHO -- mattrix01:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Iraqi reactions
The discussion about Iraqi reactions (see above) has grown a bit cool with time. It occurs to me that there are several blogs by Iraqi citizens still living in Iraq and reporting on their reactions to daily events. The content, if it can be verified to be actual Iraqis writing, may be useful in providing at least a range of viewpoints. P0M01:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Move
Okay, I should have said this before, but prisoner abuse basically explains that there is torture involved. Therefore Torture should be taken out of the title. Plus, the title is a bit long. --FlareNUKE04:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
All torture is abuse of some kind, but not all abuse is torture. So taking torture out of the title won't work because people may think the article is just about bad tastes in the water, poor ventilation, bugs in the rice, etc. On the other hand, if abuse of a sort not hurtful enough to be called torture (and Bush seems to think nothing happened that was "true" torture), then the bed bugs or whatever else was permitted to happen should be listed and explained. P0M00:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
It would appear to me that there are dangers of implicit bias in the title which must be avoided. It's not appropriate for the article title to agree with one side of the debate. Kasreyn05:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
You are jesting, no? Or perhaps you insist on objective evidence in the form of some kind of painometer attached to the nervous system of someone enduring a "stress position"? I have willingly undergone some of those stress positions in martial arts training -- with the knowledge that I could stand up and straighten out kinks at any time. Even knowing that I could terminate the experience at any time, it still hurt. I did it to make my body a more adept agent of my will. I have also endured the pain of joint twisting, etc., but, again, with the knowledge that I could "slap out of it" whenever I feared damage to my body or felt the pain intolerable. I also once put an aikido/qin-na hold on someone who was extremely sensitive to joint twisting of that nature, and he screamed in pain. There was no physical damage, but I don't think he would agree that there was no pain.
If these techniques are not intended to cause pain, then what is their purpose? Would a babushka counter-clockwise massage to the abdominal region have achieved a comparable result and would it have been equally rewarding to the person administering the treatment? P0M06:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
When you people get around to the edit of this topic you might want to watch the HBO Documentary 'Ghosts of Abu Ghraib'first. Many of the accused and convicted soldiers walk the viewer through much of what happened at Abu Ghraib prison. They speak very plainly of what they did and what they had seen. One other question... I watched the House Arms Committee investigation into the accusations of torture brought about due to Ms. Sabrina's photos, Duncan Hunter deserves a mention as he completely dismissed any chance of wrong doing, furthermore sent a clear messege to the Army by majority vote 'Do not send us military problems such as this in the future'... the US Presidential hopeful deserves a mention here for his historic leadership in this investigation, wouldn't you think?ooeat0meoo 01:07, 7 March 2007
Merge other Iraq prison abuse
Since the scandal was primarily focused on the Abu Ghraib abuse I think that the other prison abuse can be adequately addressed in a subsection on this page. 157.242.159.25019:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Sergeant Samuel Provance from Alpha Company 302nd Military Intelligence battalion, in interviews with several news agencies, reported the sexual abuse of a 16-year-old girl by two interrogators, as well as a 16-year-old son of an Iraqi general who was driven through the cold after he had been showered and who was then besmeared with mud in order to get his father to talk.[citation needed] He also pointed out several techniques used by interrogators that have been identified as being in violation of the Geneva Convention. He spoke to the media, even against direct orders, about what he knew about at the prison (largely from conversations and interactions with the interrogators). He explained that he did so because there was "definitely a cover-up" underway by the Army. He was administratively flagged and had his top secret clearance suspended in retaliation by the Army.[citation needed]
In her video diary, a prison guard said that prisoners were shot for minor misbehavior, and claimed to have had venomous snakes bite prisoners, sometimes resulting in their deaths. By her own admission, that guard was "in trouble" for having thrown rocks at the detainees.[8] Hashem Muhsen, one of the naked men in the human pyramid photo, said they were also made to crawl around the floor naked and that U.S. soldiers rode them like donkeys. After being released in January 2004, Muhsen became an Iraqi police officer.[citation needed]
It was discovered that one prisoner, Manadel al-Jamadi, died as a result of abuse, a death that was ruled a homicide by the military. One detainee has also made charges of rape under supervision of the soldiers.[citation needed]
Since the german Spiegel is the biggest and most influential weekly publication in Europe, that cover could be of interest for the media section? The title translates "America's disgrace - torture in the name of freedom". It shows very well the widespread attitude in Europe at the time that the war on terror could entice the US to sacrifice its core values. 84.56.9.6011:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Bad quotes
Someone merged two Rumsfeld quotes into one, which horribly changed the contexts of the quotes. Please see [11], the revision where I fixed them. I also fixed another quote which was somewhat inaccurate [12]. Can someone please go over the other quotes? I feel that they should really be checked for correctness. -- Felix Wiemann06:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
1. It is well written - PASS
2. Factually accurate and verifiable - FAIL - fix the reference needed citations, ensure citations are after punctuation and fix citation formatting where applicable - some need sources/date last retrieved
3. Broad coverage - FAIL - Looks fine, its a bit long and there are far too many external links - incorporate some as references if they're not already.
4. NPOV - PASS
5. Stability - PASS - no ongoing edit wars
6. Images - FAIL - Image:Algorerage.jpg and Image:RumsfeldEconomist.jpg need Fair use rationales, the rest are fine
Unsupported claims should not be present in an introductory paragraph.
Since the claim regarding CIA officers being involved is not addressed elsewhere in this article (and particularly since it is unsupported), it probably should not appear in the introductory paragraph.
The inclusion of CACI in the introductory paragraph is equally a problem, particularly in light of no supporting reference. Please see the Talk page for the article on CACI, which reveals that this is not only the subject of debate, but that CACI has filed a lawsuit against someone who made this claim. I believe it is probably not appropriate for us to be making such statements here without solid supporting evidence -- particularly in the first paragraph of the article. --DavidGC13:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Removed sentence re Graner's "innocence"
From the section "Courts-martial, Nonjudicial, and Administrative Punishment" I have removed the sentence "Many see Mr Graner's imprisonment as "punishing the whistle blower" as he was the photographer and not the actual perpetrator of the torture."
1. "Many see" is not supported. Who "sees" it this way?
2. The supposed justification for what "many see" is contrary to established fact -- Graner was convicted of abuse (assault, battery, maltreatment, conspiracy, indecent acts). The sentence leaves the impression that the claim of his supposed non-participation is uncontroversial.
3. in any case, discussion of failures in these judicial procedures is out of place here. Such discussion should be placed either in a new section on miscarriage of justice, or (if confined to Graner) on the Charles Graner page.
==
Sorry, if I post this incorrectly, I am new to wikipedia, but regarding the "Courts-martial, Nonjudicial, and Administrative Punishment", nearly all of the links in the citations to this section do not work. Does anyone have any true sources of information pertaining to the oucomes of their courts-martial and the punishments these soldiers have faced? == —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.233.150.3 (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
Removed Alberto Gonzales from Related personnel section
The section originally said that:
"Alberto Gonzales, who described provisions of the Geneva Conventions that provide prisoners "commissary privileges, scrip, athletic uniforms, and scientific instruments" as "quaint", and wrote that the "new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners",[1] was nominated by President Bush as the Attorney General of the United States, the nation's chief law-enforcement official. He was confirmed on February 3, 2005."
The reason that I deleted this section:
His statements were related to the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay who are classifed as illegal combatants and the prisoners at Abu Ghraib did not fall under this classification. This statement is intentionally misleading.
Gonzales didn't even argue against "commissary privileges, scrip, athletic uniforms, and scientific instruments". That was adlibbed by the editor of this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ofhistoricalnote (talk • contribs).
Although I reverted this deletion at first, I reverted myself to leave this up to those who spend the most time on this article to come to consensus. At the very least, these statements should be cleaned up with clear reference to this situation. --Kukinihablame aqui20:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone any followup on photo release?
On March 29 2006, the government agreed to drop all appeals and release the new set of photographs. [2]
I cant find any reference to them actually having done this, or a link to the photos. Does anyone have anything to update this?
Um..., why it's all since 2003 only?
"Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse" didn't start in 2003 (and was much, much worse before). Don't you know this? --HanzoHattori07:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
March 3, 2004 | BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Abu Ghraib prison became famous in Saddam's time as the place where men disappeared. Behind its high ochre-colored walls and looping spans of barbed wire, prisoners faced miserable living conditions, regular torture, and (in some cases) execution. Now the U.S. military controls Abu Ghraib, calling it the Baghdad Correctional Facility (though no Iraqis I've met seem to be aware of the name change). And for many Iraqis seeking information about relatives detained by the American military, Abu Ghraib is still a place where men disappear.[13]
This World War II poster (created by the U.S. Government) depicts the blinding and hooding of prisoners by a military force as being "Nazi Brutuality" and is an offical document of the U.S. government from that period of time regarding the blinding and hooding of prisoners by a military authority- the poster directly to the incidents of Abu Ghraib prisoners being bound and hooded| by both military and private contractors representing the U.S. government.
Here is the actual placement of "This is Nazi brutality" 'as in context with other images within the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse article depicting torture of prisoners by representatives of the U.S. government:
Satar Jabar standing on a box with wires connected to his body
I'm of two minds on this.
On the one hand, this over-the-top moral preening will appeal to anti-Americans who have no clue what really happened at Abu Ghraib, and yet like to pretend that they care about human rights.
On the other hand, the WWII image is an obvious propaganda poster while the hooded fascist is commonly used as a propaganda image today. There's a certain artistry in that juxtaposition.
I agree with the first part of what Randy2063 has to say, and, as for the second part, I don't think a supposedly encyclopedic article is the appropriate place to propagate such "artistry." Again, I don't think this poster adds anything of value to the article. Rather, it seems to me that the poster was placed in this article to present the United States government as committing the same crimes that they stated the Nazis were committing. Although the personnel who committed these crimes did indeed represent the government, there is no proof that their actions were due to orders coming directly from government officials. Furthermore, the scope of abuse during Nazi regime was far much larger in scope than this more incident which seems to be far more isolated. I think an encyclopedia article is not the place to try to try to make a subjective opinion as to the similarities of American and Nazi policies. Seeing as how no one has presented a compelling reason as to why this image should stay, I will remove it, once again, from the article.Sjmcfarland00:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Need updating:
Guardian uk - Associated Press
Friday January 11, 2008
Guardian Unlimited
The US army has thrown out the conviction of the only officer court martialled in the Abu Ghraib scandal, ending the four-year investigation and drawing complaints from human rights activists of a Pentagon whitewash.
Barring any new information, the decision means no officers or civilian leaders will be held criminally responsible for the prisoner abuse - which included the photographing of Iraqi prisoners in painful and sexually humiliating positions - which embarrassed the military and inflamed the Muslim world.
Lieutenant Colonel Steven Jordan was cleared of any criminal wrongdoing by Major General Richard Rowe, the Washington military district chief. He was instead given an administrative reprimand. Jordan, 51, was acquitted at his court martial in August of charges that he failed to supervise the 11 lower-ranking soldiers convicted for their roles in the abuse.
But he was found guilty of disobeying an order not to talk about the investigation, and the jury recommended a criminal reprimand, the lightest possible punishment.
ChiLois 1-12-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.132.21 (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The truth
This article is inaccurate. It indicates there was a Pentagon "response" to the 60 Minute story on Abu Ghraib, a story that 60 Minutes "broke." In fact, the U.S. Military and Pentagon broke the story, mentioning the situation to reporters multiple times in the months before 60 Minutes finally ran it. As it does acknowledge earlier in the article, the military had been investigating this situation long before the media finally decided to run stories on it.
When Rumsfeld mentioned there were worse tapes, he was acknoweledging that there were abuses but also indicating that these actions were not ordered from above in the chain of command, nor would they be tolerated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.218.101 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 13 September 2007
no mention of rape?
Why is there no mention of female detainees being raped? From what I read it occured many times and resulted in pregnancies too, should there be any mention of this in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.117.119.211 (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused by the quote "The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is seen as an amnesty law for crimes committed in the War on Terror by retroactively rewriting the War Crimes Act[60] and by abolishing habeas corpus ...". The Habeas corpus referred to is a right enjoyed by U.S. Citizens, while the Military Commissions Act applies to aliens, so it can't really abolish what doesn't exist. This point is presented pretty strongly on Wikipedia's own discussion of the Act. Nasanine (talk) 06:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
In my short time here, I've seen several examples of distortion, disinformation and outright lying. There seems to be a widespread effort to discredit and delegitimize the Bush Administration and America's presence in the Middle East. PennState21 (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Distortion, Disinformation and Outright Lying??
I agree Penn State. It is unbelieveable that so much of the "facts" (misinformation) are so poorly sourced, or not correctly sourced, and the ones which are (viewed as masterpiece opinions by a lot of the Fap here) .... are from non-reliable or extremist sources. At a minimum, the pages are sourced from extremely left-point-of-view. Keeps the continuing joke going on about Wikipedia. Bwebb00 (talk) 02:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Removal of links
Earlier today, Hmwith removed a considerable number of links from the "External links" section based on WP:EL. After reading the policy and comparing the links, I don't really have a good sense of why some were removed and some were saved. It looks like a random slash-and-burn. Could someone (or even Hmwith) explain? I posted here and not on their user page just to open the question up to more people.
Fair use rationale for Image:RumsfeldEconomist.jpg
Image:RumsfeldEconomist.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Why is it necessary to have the title "Abu Gharaib torture and prisoner abuse"? It seems rather redundant. Why not just "Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse"? -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Because some people consider that what happened there to be mostly torture, and some consider it to be mostly abuse, i.e. something less than severe physical torture. This is a point that will probably never be agreed upon because there is such a variety of actions involved. Mostly when people refer to the incident they mean what was pictured, and the worst thing pictured is Graner and Fredricks beating detainees, but the overwhelming majority of the pictures depict detainees being humiliated or mocked (such as England laughing at the naked detainees or detainees piled in a pyramid or being sat on like furniture or being stood on a box and told falsely that they will be electrocuted if they fall off or a chem light being placed sticking out of an anus and so on). Then there was another incident in which a detainee was accidentally killed during interrogation, due to a heart attack aggravated by partial suffocation. Probably it is impossible to have a NPOV article on the Abu Graib abuse incident, the subject is far too politcally loaded. Walterego (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
There's a difference between political loading/NPOV, and pushing a point in a title. Either torture or prisoner abuse in this case, I believe, would cover the situation. For a moment, let's forget about real-world prisons, in more than one country, that have been charged with violations of human rights. Forget about arguments that years on death row get into the question of what the U.S. Bill of Rights calls "cruel and unusual punishment", and think about the Stanford prison experiment, which involved no actual guards or prisoners.
In that experiment, however, the principal investigator, Philip Zimbardo, stopped it because the behavior of the guard role-players was turning into things that were arguably torture and/or abuse. Either would have covered things that actually happened, yet because our civilized minds understand it was an experiment, the relatively neutral title covers it. Among bioethicists, it's generally agreed that no human subject research board would ever again give permission for this, or for Stanley Milgram's experiments in obedience.
We don't speak of "World War II and Killing People". We don't speak of "Rwandan genocide and murders". While I recognize that American football analogies are certainly not global, there's a violation called "piling on", which happens when after the ball-carrier is clearly down on the ground, additional players jump on him. Putting multiple terms into a title, when either would convey the point, is "piling on", regardless of the country involved, and I believe to be a sufficient POV violation for admin action.Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
These are all good points but I don't think there's much that can be done now. To use another football analogy, the "critics" have taken this ball and ran with it. They're not going to walk this back while they're still dancing in the end zone.
With most of these subjects, I'm inclined to think the best we may hope for is that names are remembered. For example, if a critic of the war had once claimed to support the Geneva Conventions, then we'd better not let that be forgotten. It will come in handy later.
I'm not following this article sufficiently to make heads or tails of it, but I thought some editors here might find this blog post by Errol Morris at the New York Times might have some useful information. ⟳ausa کui×20:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It's an interesting piece, although, since he's a far-left ideologue, it's hard to know how much it can be trusted.
Well, if he's a "far left ideologue", then it is not worth reading or taking seriously. In fact, it is sufficient to label him, oops, I mean identify him, as a "far left ideologue". That way, all his careful and thorough information gathering, organization, and patient analysis can safely be ignored, saving us the work of having, or trying, to learn what really happened, so we can focus on what journalism is really supposed to be all about these days in our country: hype & sensationalism, hollywood style; but, most of all, propaganda, cover-ups, lies, and bull shit.
Who is Satar Jabar & Why Do We Care?
This is the beginning of this article as it stands now (not the first paragraph, but the part after the outline):
===60 Minutes II broadcast and aftermath ===
In late April 2004, U.S. television news-magazine 60 Minutes II broke a story involving abuse and humiliation of Iraqi inmates by a group of U.S. soldiers. The story included photographs depicting the abuse of prisoners.[8]
It may be noteworthy that responsibility for abusing the man claimed to be Satar Jabar was not determined at a court martial, but admitted in the context of a plea-bargain....
On this issue I believe that I am as, if not more, informed than the average citizen, which I know is not saying much. I am not an expert. It is from this perspective that I inquire why the second paragraph mentions, without a link, someone named Satar Jabar, whose name I have never heard before.
Did the original 60 Minutes II broadcast (Is there really a roman numeral II now? I don't generally get my news from TV. I read.) have something to do with Mr. Jabar and whether a court martial determined that he was abused? I don't think the average consumer of this article will know or remember him in particular or the issue of whether an official determination of abuse has been made. There isn't even a link where I can find this out. Perhaps there was originally some context for this paragraph, but there isn't now.
I propose that either the paragraph should be (1) deleted altogether, or (2) moved to another section with some kind of introduction to show how the topic is relevant, or (3) if this man and this issue are really that central to the 60 Minutes broadcast, a lot more explanation be included.
As to this include pictures/not include pictures issue or not include some pictures I think that in general we should go with the standard of print encyclopedias. This standard should apply to all articles, whether or not they are about politically charged issues. You'd be surprised what I learned from the 1970's World Book Encyclopedia. My guess is they would include what is there now. As to other pictures, I can't tell 'cause y'all are sometimes discussing this or that picture without describing them and the pictures aren't there now.
I know some people say different standards should apply to print than to internet, but that's really OT. If someone wants to debate that issue, please contact me.
Also, my spouse has reminded me about another reason why we should not exclude altogether. There are many deniers of the Holocaust and pictures are an important way of getting the truth out to the general public, even if they aren't sufficient proof for conspiracy theorists. I could see a campaign to deny altogether what went on at Abu Ghraib being waged in the future.
It's a good point about the 60 Minutes II program. It really had nothing to do with court-martial determination of abuse. The Army's investigation into those soldiers began in January, several months prior to the program.
The pictures on 60 Minutes II are what made it into a propaganda issue for all of those sympathetic in one way or another to the insurgency. That compelled further investigations by the Army, and we learned much more about other things that went on. It's important to that aspect of the story, but I doubt it made any difference to the charges against those particular guards.
Pictures can always be used and misused. They didn't stop Holocaust denial, or even slow it down. The Holocaust is an interesting comparison, though, in that its denialists tend to be on the same side as those who supported the Iraqi insurgents.
I think a lot more people would be convinced by the Holocaust denials if there weren't pictures. There had been rumors about Abu Ghraib and, I believe, warnings from the Red Cross/Crescent long before, but nothing came of it until there were pictures. It seems pictures are not only worth a thousand words, they can also launch congressional (and other) investigations. Leave pictures in is my vote if this still an issur. Ileanadu (talk) 10:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Part of Holocaust-denial is in diminishing it by saying it was no different than incidents like Abu Ghraib.
I think what you're missing is that Abu Ghraib-like incidents are common in war, as well as in prisons. It's just that cameras were not ubiquitous during WWII, and ordinary soldiers did not have the means to make quick copies to send to the Army's criminal investigation division. And even if they did, the press would have been forbidden to print them during wartime. And I don't think the ICRC warnings meant what you seem to think they meant.
This is another reason the Holocaust analogy is interesting. Had the "human rights" activists been as decidedly anti-American back then, too (and they almost were in the early days), the brutality of the Holocaust might have been received lesser condemnation than American guards who had humiliated low-life inmates like Satar Jabar. Even today, there are people who make this comparison as if the Holocaust and Abu Ghraib were similar.
I agree it would be a mistake to remove the pictures. They're part of the history of these times, and they're not what's wrong with this article.
It is true that incidents like these, and worse ones have always gone on. Colonists during the American Revolution were sometimes quite cruel to their Tory neighbors. I will put all the Holocaust pictures and documentation side by side with everything that went on in Abu Ghraib any day and it will be clear that the situations are in no way equivalent. It is preposterous to say they are; unfortunately, there's nothing we can do about those who persist in ignoring the evidence before them. Ileanadu (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
O.K., so Satar Jabar is the name of an actual individual whom somebody has claimed is the same person who is shown standing on a box with a poncho and his head covered. It's a picture that appears in an earlier section of the article. I don't know why I didn't see it the first time; I could have sworn I used my navigator's search function, but I must confess, I don't always scrutinize the pictures, and don't always read the captions. However, I don't think we should assume that readers will read the caption and make this connection.
If Satar Jabar's name, his treatment or the picture, supposedly of him, are central, or even just relevant, to the 60 minutes article, then that should be spelled out before any discussion of courts martial or plea bargains. Otherwise, the paragraph should be deleted or moved. It comes out of left field here and is not helpful to the reader. Ileanadu (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Guess what I came here to ask about? This paragraph is out of place and it seems that this was agreed on but nothing was actually done. I've moved it from the article to here for tweaking into future use, if any. Getting a few cites would be particularly nice. --Kizor08:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
“
It may be noteworthy that responsibility for abusing the man claimed to be Satar Jabar was not determined at a court martial, but admitted in the context of a plea-bargain. Satar Jafar did not claim compensation from the US Government and there is no record of a judicial determination that he was abused at Abu Ghraib. There is some suggestion that whilst he was briefly detained at Abu Ghraib Jafar had been released from US custody at the time the above photograph was allegedly taken at Abu Ghraib.
”
Images
If the images are going to be included at all, which for most of them is of questionable value in the first place, why are they censored? Exploding Boy (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
02:52, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
00:04, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
