Do the pictures collected in Salon's "The Abu Ghraib Files" represent the entirety of what Taguba reviewed in his investigation? He describes pictures depicting rape. There have been no pictures made public so far depicting out and out rape. So was he just using the word rape to describe some of the (still abhorrent) sexual abuse depicted in the publicized photos, or are there in fact photos that depict actual rape that have not been made public (regardless of whether or not they are specifically part of the group of photos Obama is currently trying to censor)? This is still very unclear.

Thanks.

that threaten american troops. it's the actions depicted. the story of what went on in abu ghraib is known throughout the islamic world.

those pictures are suppressed to protect government officers who were responsible for those actions. to protect the soldiers, hang their officers.

right up to the whitehouse...

Excellent follow-up to help clarify the situation, Mark. Thank you.

A Reuters reporter (Mohammed Abbas) did something similar yesterday, by - what a concept - tracking down and asking two of the Iraqi victims of our abuse whether these photos should be released. Unsurprisingly, the victims have a very different perspective on this issue than do our complicit politicians and high-ranking, grossly derelict, military officers:

Sammarrai, a senior Foreign Ministry official under Saddam Hussein, said he was stripped naked, had cold water thrown over him in winter and was repeatedly beaten and electrocuted.

He says there are still pits in his elbows and knees where the electrodes were attached.

[...]

"But deciding to cover the photos up in order to manipulate world opinion ... I believe this is another crime against the Iraqi people and humanity in general."

Mohammed Ali, 23, is another person who says he was abused by U.S. military. Speaking from Falluja in Anbar province, he recalled hearing U.S. soldiers take photos while he was beaten, a bag shoved over his head. He needed two operations to repair damage to his stomach, he said.

"I was sat on the floor. (They) would beat me two at a time. They put cigarettes out on me and threw cold water on me. That lasted for two days," he said.

"I think it's better for the pictures to be released so those in the Middle East and the West can see what happened."

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE54S01F20090529?sp=true

Solicitor General Kagan's application to the Supreme Court today gives some further context for the photos at issue (emphasis added):

As is relevant here, respondents [ACLU] seek the disclosure of photographs in military investigatory files concerning the military's investigation of allegations of detainee abuse. At issue is the application of FOIA Exemptions 7(C) and 7(F), which exempt law-enforcement records from mandatory disclosure if their release "could reasonably be expected" either "to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy," 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(C), or "to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual," 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(F).

A different set of photographs concerning detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib prison (known as the "Darby photos") were initially at issue in this litigation. The government argued that they should be exempt from disclosure on the ground that release of the images could reasonably be expected to invade the detainees' privacy (Exemption 7(C)) and to endanger the lives of American and coalition forces, as well as civilians, in the combat and insurgency areas (Exemption 7(F)). The district court rejected both arguments and ordered the release of the records. The government appealed, but its appeal was mooted shortly before oral argument by the publication of the Darby photos on a website (salon.com).

The litigation then turned to the 21 additional photographs of detainees presently at issue.2 Those photos are contained in Reports of Investigation conducted by the Army's Criminal Investigation Division into allegations of misconduct in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Footnote 2: A substantial number of additional photographs exist, in addition to the 21 photographs, that are the subject of this case in district court.

- United States Solicitor General Elena Kagan, May 29, 2009

Shamefully and undemocratically, the United States Senate has already hastily acted - as part of its off-budget continuation of our unauthorized military occupation of Iraq, via yet another "emergency" supplemental spending bill - to adopt a Lieberman/Graham/McCain amendment (before any committee hearing or debate) by unanimous consent, that amends the Freedom of Information Act to end-run the 2nd Circuit's 2008 ruling ordering release of these photos...

This Lieberman amendment is clearly wholly supported, if not written by the Obama administration, and the administration hopes to steamroll Speaker Pelosi into adopting it in the House during secret supplemental conferencing, in order to avoid an appeal to the Supreme Court, as Kagan's application makes clear:

The Solicitor General has accordingly determined that a petition for a writ of certiorari will be filed in the absence of legislation resolving the issue.

[...]

4. On May 21, 2009, the Senate by unanimous consent adopted the Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009 as an amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (H.R. 2346). 155 Cong. Rec. S5798-S5799 (daily ed.) (Amendment 1157). That same day, the Senate passed the Supplemental Appropriations Act. The House of Representatives previously had passed H.R. 2346 on May 14, 2009 without a similar provision regarding detainee photos. 155 Cong. Rec. H5632. The Senate has requested a conference with the House to reconcile the differences in the two versions of the bill. 155 Cong. Rec. S5804. It is expected that the conference will take place after the House returns from its current recess on June 2, 2009.

The Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act as passed by the Senate provides that a "covered record" shall not be subject to mandatory disclosure under FOIA, and it defines "covered record" to mean "any record" that is a "photograph that was taken between September 11, 2001 and January 22, 2009 relating to the treatment of individuals engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States in operations outside of the United States" and "for which a certification by the Secretary of Defense under subsection (c) [of the Act] is in effect." 155 Cong. Rec. S5799 (Subsection (b)(1), (d)). Subsection (c) provides that the Secretary of Defense "shall certify" a covered record if the Secretary, "in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, determines that the disclosure of that photograph would endanger" a United States citizen or members of the Armed Forces or employees of the United States government deployed outside the United States. Ibid.

[...]

The Solicitor General has determined that a petition for a writ of certiorari will be filed unless the Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act is enacted into law, which, upon certification by the Secretary of Defense, would provide a sufficient and independent basis for withholding the photographs presently at issue.

- Solicitor General Elena Kagan, 5/29/09

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/aclu_v_dod-application_for_extn_final.pdf