US Soldiers Trade Iraqi Dead Photos for Porn (This can't be true, can it?)

[Gemini Cricket]

US Soldiers Allegedly Trading Iraqi Dead Pictures for Porn (http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/09/us-soldiers-allegedly-trading-pictures.html)

I was thinking that this was weird, possibly extreme blog weirdness.

But...

The AP Covered it (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050927/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/corpse_photos)

and then...

The NY Times Covered It (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/28/international/middleeast/28site.html?pagewanted=print).

The Army is investigating complaints that soldiers posted photographs of Iraqi corpses on an Internet site in exchange for access to pornographic images on the site, officials said Tuesday.

[sleepyjeff]

Just goes to show that if you dig hard enough you are bound to find some kind of disgusting behavior among a population of 100,000+.

What is truly disgusting is the reporting of this story.....it can't possibly help the troops on the ground in harms way---so much for the left* saying they "really support he troops but not the war".




*left media, not you gd...I know you're a good guy

[Ghoulish Delight]

Yeah, damned freedom of the press. Those bastards should really just keep their mouth shut.

[innerSpaceman]

sleepyjeff, we do not live (yet) in a police state. Propaganda is the job of the government, but not the press. Their job is to report matters of import and interest, no matter the consequences.

It doesn't matter if it's two grunts or two hundred, it's a story. And how it affects troop morale is not a matter for the press to be concerned with.



Widespread, systemic prisoner abuse can't be good for morale either. Should those stories be squelched? How 'bout the story of how the army is going after the people who've blown the whistle on systemic prisoner abuse, but not the abusers themselves? Bad for morale, huh?

[Gemini Cricket]

CNN and Wolf Blitzer just discussed this issue on TV. They also talked about the blogs that this story was appearing on. This is awesome. People need to know about all this.

[sleepyjeff]

sleepyjeff, we do not live (yet) in a police state. Propaganda is the job of the government, but not the press. Their job is to report matters of import and interest, no matter the consequences.

It doesn't matter if it's two grunts or two hundred, it's a story. And how it affects troop morale is not a matter for the press to be concerned with.



Widespread, systemic prisoner abuse can't be good for morale either. Should those stories be squelched? How 'bout the story of how the army is going after the people who've blown the whistle on systemic prisoner abuse, but not the abusers themselves? Bad for morale, huh?

Never said that the press should be banned or barred from reporting this....said it was disgusting that they did. There are lots of stories out there that are not reported that are of much more "import and interest" then this. This is clearly just another attempt to make the American Military look evil......which will imho indirectly cause the deaths of our men and women :(

[sleepyjeff]

CNN and Wolf Blitzer just discussed this issue on TV. They also talked about the blogs that this story was appearing on. This is awesome. People need to know about all this.

Why is it awesome?

Why do people need to know about this?

In the end, what exactly are you hoping this story will accomplish?

[wendybeth]

Jeff, you're shooting the messenger here. The story exists because certain people feel like they can do this sort of **** and get away with it. They are enraging others and endangering lives, not to mention behaving in a disgusting and (I believe) very un-American way. We're better than that- aren't we?

[Motorboat Cruiser]

This is clearly just another attempt to make the American Military look evil......which will imho indirectly cause the deaths of our men and women :(

In my opinion, the actions are what damages the military image, not the reporting of them. No improper actions, no story. If a certain segment of the military doesn't want to be perceived in the way they are, they need to clean up their act. They can't be taking pictures of their prisoners on leashes, naked, and stacked up to the ceiling... or dead and trading them for porn.

You are shooting the messenger.

[Prudence]

Prudence has an opinion!

I'll wait for you to get over your shock and surprise.

If the photos are on the internet, they will eventually be found by someone outside those participating in the posting. The internet is not a particularly good place to hide things. Whether found by our government, insurgent groups, AI, the press, or any other group, they will be found and it will look bad.

Why will it look bad? Because it's awfully hard to take the moral high ground when your actions aren't so moral. We already went through a whole hoo-haw over prisoner photos. I'll conceed that war is an experience that cannot be understood by those who aren't there. However, there is a significant distinction between taking a "war trophy" photo and posting that photo on the internet, just as there is a distinction treatment of live humans who pose a continuing threat or possess valuable information and treatment of an inanimate corpse. (This portion of the opinion was first run by my husband to make sure I didn't have a wholly unrealistic view of the military.) Not only that, but I believe there was a photo on the blog page of a woman injured in an attack (not an insurgent.) I may be wrong, as I didn't linger. If so, I don't even have words to describe that.

Now back the the "eventually found" portion of this argument: Best case scenario is that the military finds it first and shuts it down. Worst case scenario is that the enemy finds it first and immediately starts the propaganda against us. Middle ground is that another party finds it first, the government acts appropriately shocked, and involved parties are punished.

I agree that the existence of these photos puts our troops in danger. However, because I feel that the photos would have been eventually found by someone, whether or not press, I feel that the irresponsiblity lies with the participants for creating a situation that opens troops up to increased risk. The soldiers involved created the product and placed it on the 'net. Not only that, but they did this AFTER the Abu Whatsis prison episode. Have they no sense whatsoever? And do they regularly display this lack of sense in carrying out their assigned duties upon which the lives of others depend?

[Gemini Cricket]

Why is it awesome?

Why do people need to know about this?

In the end, what exactly are you hoping this story will accomplish?
It's awesome that the MSM is picking up on this story that started off as info on a blog. It's awesome that between Katrina and this, someone's teaching CNN reporters how to be journalists again.

People need to know about this so that they will not be so stunned when they realize that people aren't throwing roses at our feet in Iraq because of us doing sh!t like that over there. People need to know that we do things there that we accuse other countries of doing.

I'm hoping this story will accomplish wiping off those smug smiles off of those soldiers faces by having them brought to trial for what they did. Lyndie England isn't smiling so much these days. It's the same type thing in my opinion. This time it's gloating over someone that just died. That's just inhumane and moronic in my opinion.

An ostrich can bury its head and think everything's fine, but being in the dark is being in the dark.

[sleepyjeff]

It's awesome that the MSM is picking up on this story that started off as info on a blog. It's awesome that between Katrina and this, someone's teaching CNN reporters how to be journalists again.

People need to know about this so that they will not be so stunned when they realize that people aren't throwing roses at our feet in Iraq because of us doing sh!t like that over there. People need to know that we do things there that we accuse other countries of doing.

I'm hoping this story will accomplish wiping off those smug smiles off of those soldiers faces by having them brought to trial for what they did. Lyndie England isn't smiling so much these days. It's the same type thing in my opinion. This time it's gloating over someone that just died. That's just inhumane and moronic in my opinion.

An ostrich can bury its head and think everything's fine, but being in the dark is being in the dark.

1- Katrina happened after this was first "investigated"...I doubt if any major shift in the world of journalism has occured here much less an awesome one...but that's just my opinion.

2-Who would be stunned? Every leftist media outlet in the World has been reporting every conceivable little "atrocity" that the Americans have commited since this War began.......how on Earth is this one going to "soften" the blow? Including what these very few individuals did in the pronoun "We" sounds like an indictment of the entire US Armed services( or even our whole nation?)...I am sure this was just a mistake but would like clarification.

3-Putting thousands of US troops in harms way just to wipe off a few smiles(especially when one considers that these smiles can be wiped clean without the danger)??

Chicken little can scream and scream but the sky still ain't fallin:)---I don't know what that means but just trying to keep the theme flightless;)

[sleepyjeff]

In my opinion, the actions are what damages the military image, not the reporting of them. No improper actions, no story. If a certain segment of the military doesn't want to be perceived in the way they are, they need to clean up their act. They can't be taking pictures of their prisoners on leashes, naked, and stacked up to the ceiling... or dead and trading them for porn.

You are shooting the messenger.

I agree but find me a group of 100,000+ individuals who act as saintly as would be required to escpape a agenda driven media?

If the messenger has a malicious agenda he deserves to be shot!

[Prudence]

I agree but find me a group of 100,000+ individuals who act as saintly as would be required to escpape a agenda driven media?



You don't think that the photos described, presented in that context go beyond individuals not acting "saintly"? I don't consider it my place to micromanage the military. However, some actions are sufficiently egregious that I consider it my right and duty to object.

[Name]

You don't think that the photos described, presented in that context go beyond individuals not acting "saintly"? I don't consider it my place to micromanage the military. However, some actions are sufficiently egregious that I consider it my right and duty to object.
Agree, especially when it is the military that often times is the face of the United States and its citizens to everyone else.....

Not to shift this in another direction, but we can live in our own little isolated island for only so long. As much as it may suck, we live in a growingly more and more one world economy. What the rest of the world thinks of us as a society, can and will affect how it does business with us. And with the state of the amount of imports in relation to the amount of exports, well, we need all the good publicity we can get. A couple of bad eggs out there doing stupid things, is not good for our PR.

And back on the topic.....

Tis better for our media to report on this and make major news of it, thusly keeping the PR a bit better in control, then for them to have said nothing and have another countries media report on it, and have that country blow it farther out of proportion then our own media may or may not have. I think it is excellent PR for us to hear from our own sources firsthand and allow us as citizens to be outraged by the behaviour of our military peoples, so that the rest of the economic world may see that maybe they will want to do more business with us. Or do we like importing more then we export?

Or I could be entirely thinking way off tonight. But I like the argument, and I am sticking with it.

[Scrooge McSam]

3-Putting thousands of US troops in harms way just to wipe off a few smiles(especially when one considers that these smiles can be wiped clean without the danger)??

Apparantly not.

Did you catch that story about the army cancelling the investigation (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050928/us_nm/iraq_usa_photos_dc) into this mess?

The Army Criminal Investigation Command in Iraq conducted the preliminary inquiry within the past week but closed it after concluding no felony crime had been committed and failing to determine whether U.S. soldiers were responsible for the photos and whether they showed actual war dead, Army officials said.

LOL Couldn't determine whether U.S. soldiers were responsible for the photos and whether they showed actual war dead?

And we're supposed to trust these idiots? These are the minds that took us into this war. Truly stunning.

Perhaps they could ask the soldiers in the US army uniforms pointing at the dead bodies. THEIR NAMES ARE EMBLAZONED ACROSS THEIR CHESTS IF THAT MAKES IT ANY EASIER TO IDENTIFY THEM.

Oh, and after that, check with Lyndie England to see if people participating in this kind of ghoulish freak show are responsible for their actions.

But this is even more telling...

"We're not blowing this off," Curtin said. "If the Army thinks it's in its interest to investigate something, we will"

It's not in the best interest of the army to investigate. There it is.

Sleepy, your faith in the army to handle this appropriately is misplaced.

[sleepyjeff]

Tis better for our media to report on this and make major news of it, thusly keeping the PR a bit better in control, then for them to have said nothing and have another countries media report on it, and have that country blow it farther out of proportion then our own media may or may not have. I think it is excellent PR for us to hear from our own sources firsthand and allow us as citizens to be outraged by the behaviour of our military peoples, so that the rest of the economic world may see that maybe they will want to do more business with us. Or do we like importing more then we export?

Or I could be entirely thinking way off tonight. But I like the argument, and I am sticking with it.

You know, I didn't consider this. Perhaps this would be the lesser of two evils. It's just that I see so much what can only be described as glee from the left* everytime something like this is reported.....to me this kinda proves that they are not after justice but something a little more political.

It's horrendous and disgusting what these inidviduals(I can't call them soldiers as they gave up that privilege) did and ultimately any thing negative that happens to our troops because of this should be laid at their feet but if these reporters were doing this story for anything less then just plain journalism then they too will share in the blame :(

*mostly leftist media not anyone here really.

[sleepyjeff]

.

Sleepy, your faith in the army to handle this appropriately is misplaced.

Find me a police force of any city over 100,000 which has never mis-handled a single crime. They are there first and foremost to win a war....policing themselves, although important, is not nor should it be their primary concern.

[Scrooge McSam]

Find me a police force of any city over 100,000 which has never mis-handled a single crime.

There's not one. That's why it is so important to have a free press.

They are there first and foremost to win a war....

Yeah, a war that was never properly declared. Congress slinked under the table and sacrificed their responsibility, not to mention their collective balls, to give one man the power to drag us into this idiotic mess. Where is the declaration of war?

We are there first and foremost to prop up the political and ideological aspirations of a fool who was planning to invade Iraq before he was even (s)elected. This same fool (or "disgusting individual", if you prefer) told us he was bringing in Osama "dead or alive". Osama bin Laden is the guy who runs the organization responsible for 9/11, for those of us who haven't been paying attention. Months later after getting his stupid little war with Iraq he tells us that he just doesn't spend that much time thinking about Osama. Our president (and it would appear, half our population) doesn't spend much time THINKING, period!

We are there because some people can't tell the difference between Al Queda and Iraq. I swear the next person that tells me we're in Iraq because they attacked us is gonna get it right between the eyes. I HAVE HAD ENOUGH!

We are there because we were lied to. And we'll be there until the people who supported this man and believed his lies about restoring honor to the White House stand up and call this man what he is... a lying warmongering fool who should be impeached immediately.

I won't be holding my breath.

[Gemini Cricket]

Including what these very few individuals did in the pronoun "We" sounds like an indictment of the entire US Armed services( or even our whole nation?)
They represent us when they are in uniform. They are "we" over there. They, the US soldiers, are torturing people in Abu Ghraib and beyond, yet we were supposed to be there liberating people. We don't have a leg to stand on when we are being hypocritical.

Look at the pictures. These soldiers act like their playing a video game or something.

I agree with that Turkish activist's reamark to Karen Hughes who is trying to improve the US reputation in the Middle East.
There is "no chance for America to make its image better … while the war in Iraq is still going on (and) people are dying every day,"...
She's right, Hughes is out of touch... The 5 week vacation cowboy (Bush) and his supporters are out of touch. Harsh as they may be, stories like these can put things into perspective.

quote source (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1166958&page=1)

[Prudence]

Find me a police force of any city over 100,000 which has never mis-handled a single crime. They are there first and foremost to win a war....policing themselves, although important, is not nor should it be their primary concern.

Don't major cities usually have citizen review boards and other mechanisms to reduce episodes of police corruption? Do soldiers get a free pass on abhorent behavior because their job is difficult and unsavory? Or is it that they get a free pass because there are so many of them we just throw up our hands and say "soldiers will be soldiers"? Because there will always be the proverbial bad apples so we should never try to pluck them out as soon as they are identified? Or perhaps because if we ignore it, we can pretend it will go away?

[scaeagles]

I agree with that Turkish activist's reamark to Karen Hughes who is trying to improve the US reputation in the Middle East.

Quote:
There is "no chance for America to make its image better … while the war in Iraq is still going on (and) people are dying every day,"...

I wonder what the Turkish activist would say about terrorists who set off road side bombs or explosives in market places in Iraq. Yes, people are dying every day, and it is sad.

I agree that the soldiers must be held accountable. I don't cringe that the story has been reported, it just makes me sick that it happened. The problem is that isolated incidences make our forces look like thugs and, yes, does damage our reputation.

But, for a Turkish activist to complain that people are dying every day because of the presence of America....that is reprehensible. People are dying every day because of terrorists who are in opposition not just to America's presence, but to any government in Iraq that is not in line with what they want. It is interesting that even with large Islamic components coming into the Iraqi Constitution that the terrorists don't stop. Wouldn't they be happy if it were truly going to establish an Islamic state? They are against freedom in ANY form.

Saddam killed more Iraqis and Muslims than the US ever will. If the Turkish activist were truly concerned about the death, then I would wonder why she doesn't condemn the terrorists, or offer gratitude that Saddam is gone. I have no problem with people complaining about progress being made or not enough Iraqis taking part in the security forces or whatever, but to blame America for the death? Seems disingenuous to me.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

If the messenger has a malicious agenda he deserves to be shot!


I agree, I'll even help put the blindfold on.

We are talking about Pat Robertson, right? ;)

[sleepyjeff]

I agree, I'll even help put the blindfold.

We are talking about Pat Robertson, right? ;)

:D

[sleepyjeff]

Don't major cities usually have citizen review boards and other mechanisms to reduce episodes of police corruption? Do soldiers get a free pass on abhorent behavior because their job is difficult and unsavory? Or is it that they get a free pass because there are so many of them we just throw up our hands and say "soldiers will be soldiers"? Because there will always be the proverbial bad apples so we should never try to pluck them out as soon as they are identified? Or perhaps because if we ignore it, we can pretend it will go away?

Yes I suppose they do but I am not really talking about the "official" or "police" response to this incident. Bad apples should be punished. However, shouldn't the justice be carried out in such a way so as not to endanger the lives of all the good apples?

If one tree has a couple of bad apples you don't chop down the entire orchard.

oy....first flightless birds now apple trees:)

[Prudence]

Yes I suppose they do but I am not really talking about the "official" or "police" response to this incident. Bad apples should be punished. However, shouldn't the justice be carried out in such a way so as not to endanger the lives of all the good apples?

If one tree has a couple of bad apples you don't chop down the entire orchard.

oy....first flightless birds now apple trees:)

Last night, my husband snorted and said "they're already in danger." He doesn't think soldiers are more or less in danger as a result of this reporting. I know he doesn't speak for all soldiers or veterans, but he has a bit more clout than me on that aspect. (And did I mention that my husband's a rabid conservative?)

Second: If justice is being carried out, then by all means let's get out of it's way. I'm not a fan of cameras in the courtroom, re-enactments on CourtTV, chasing officials into their homes when they're just trying to take the kids to school, etc. However, in this case the website persists, new content gets added, and the official government word so far is apparently a giant "oh well." And isn't that why a free press is supposed to be so fantastic? To ensure that information gets to the people so that the people can then make appropriate voting choices if government is not carrying out the people's will? Don't we raise a hue and cry when other governments limit press reporting on unflattering conduct?

If the government's soundbite on this issue was "We agree that this sort of conduct is inappropriate and will take steps to identify those responsible and take appropriate disciplinary action. Thank you for bringing this to our attention." then I might be persuaded to give them a moment to carry our their justice or whathaveyou. But that doesn't seem to be the case so far.

[Gemini Cricket]

More Photos of Abu Ghraib to be Released (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001218842)
Last year a Republican senator conceded that they contained scenes of "rape and murder" and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said they included acts that were "blatantly sadistic."
Bush Remarks at a Gala (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031008-9.html)
"Iraq is free of rape rooms and torture chambers."
President George Bush - Oct. 8, 2003

This just came out today about the content of the photos. The US may not have killed as many people in the US as Saddam, but these soldiers are possibly guilty of raping prisoners. And then taking pictures. Others are taking pictures of dead bodies and smiling.

I'm sorry. Why am I having to qualify any of this? What kind of proof does a Bushie need?!

[innerSpaceman]

OMG, they could publish pictures of Bush with a knife in hand, slitting the throat of an 8-month fetus that he's <o<k-deep in the ass of, and Bushies would not acknowledge the existence of proof that this man has done anything wrong.

I'm not accusing anyone here of being such a Bushie. To the contrary, the conservatives who post here are not absolutists and can carry on a civil debate without head-in-the-sand.



for the most part.

[Name]

OMG, they could publish pictures of Bush with a knife in hand, slitting the throat of an 8-month fetus that he's <o<k-deep in the ass of, and Bushies would not acknowledge the existence of proof that this man has done anything wrong.
Of course not, the photo would obviously have been photoshopped.

[Gemini Cricket]

Pentagon Still Not Reimbursing Troops Who Buy Their Own Body Armor (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002530477_bodyarmor30.html)
Nearly a year after Congress demanded action, the Pentagon still hasn't figured out a way to reimburse U.S. troops for body armor and equipment they purchased to better protect themselves while serving in Iraq.
Kind of like the way the gov't couldn't figure out which soldiers were in those pictures.
This administration is so very out of touch.
:(

[SacTown Chronic]

I've been known to trade pictures of dead presidents for porn.