Nasty Abu Ghraib accusations

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » July 16, 2004, 6:07 am

'Secret film shows Iraq prisoners sodomised'
By Charles Arthur, Technology Editor
16 July 2004

Young male prisoners were filmed being sodomised by American soldiers at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, according to the journalist who first revealed the abuses there.

Seymour Hersh, who reported on the torture of the prisoners in New Yorker magazine in May, told an audience in San Francisco that "it's worse". But he added that he would reveal the extent of the abuses: "I'm not done reporting on all this," he told a meeting of the American Civil Liberties Union.

He said: "The boys were sodomised with the cameras rolling, and the worst part is the soundtrack, of the boys shrieking. And this is your government at war."

He accused the US administration, and all but accused President George Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney of complicity in covering up what he called "war crimes

Cut and pasted from the Independent newspaper in the UK.
Has anyone seen any other references?

Kguku · Post by **Kguku** » July 16, 2004, 6:19 am

Seymour Hersh reporting about sodomy is kind of amusing.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 16, 2004, 12:37 pm

Kguku wrote:Seymour Hersh reporting about sodomy is kind of amusing.

I too find that funny this Friday morning!

It was probably just a routine body cavity search and then twisted into something else by Abu.

I'm sure we'll see the movies on the net if it's true.

Post by **Sylvus** » July 16, 2004, 12:47 pm

Winnow wrote:I'm sure we'll see the movies on the net if it's true.

Er, I won't see them.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 16, 2004, 12:51 pm

Sylvus wrote:
Winnow wrote:I'm sure we'll see the movies on the net if it's true.
Er, I won't see them.

Arrgggh! My eyes!!!!

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » July 16, 2004, 12:54 pm

A lot of the people in the know have been saying "there's a lot worse to come" since this broke... guess this is what they were talking about.

While the investigation thus far has made the "they were acting alone" claims look as stupid as they are, I doubt anyone too far up the chain of command thought they would go this far..

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » July 16, 2004, 1:03 pm

You know, I hate to defend the resevist scum there, but let's face reality, the Army is a male dominated group who promote antihomosexuality, being branded a "fag" is worst than being branded a coward.

I do not believe this is as the article states.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » July 16, 2004, 1:07 pm

Kylere wrote:You know, I hate to defend the resevist scum there, but let's face reality, the Army is a male dominated group who promote antihomosexuality, being branded a "fag" is worst than being branded a coward.

I do not believe this is as the article states.

Ass rape is a heterosexual crime... what's your point?

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » July 16, 2004, 1:08 pm

Kylere wrote:You know, I hate to defend the resevist scum there, but let's face reality, the Army is a male dominated group who promote antihomosexuality, being branded a "fag" is worst than being branded a coward.

I do not believe this is as the article states.

umm this kind of rape is most common in extremely homophobic environments.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » July 16, 2004, 5:16 pm

This is what happens when you let gays in the military.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » July 16, 2004, 6:03 pm

Oh geez people ignoring basics to make their point.

Troopies in the Army are not going to let themselves be known as the guy who fucked a guy in the ass. It would end their career.

I would expect rape from these people, but male homosexuality or even the hint of it is so worked against in the military I cannot see it happening. Clinton was a pussy and made the rule 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell" instead of backing gays like he promised, and guess what, raping a male is the same as telling.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » July 17, 2004, 12:00 am

Kylere wrote:Troopies in the Army are not going to let themselves be known as the guy who fucked a guy in the ass. It would end their career.

I know you're not the type of pack animal that would do this, so you deign to be incapable of concieving it. You're not known as "the guy who fucked a guy in the ass" when the whole group does it. There was no intent of advertising this to the wider world, military or otherwise.

Pretty similar to say a group of teenage heterosexual football players sitting around playing "soggy biscuit". No individual is going to sit around in a locker room and masturbate, they'd be tagged at least queer and reviled for life, but the entire group can do it.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » July 17, 2004, 12:09 am

wtf is soggy biscuit?

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » July 17, 2004, 12:15 am

Honestly Zaelath, I don't think you have it right. It is not the homophobia thing that people like to toss around (term of ignorance by the way, not liking something does not imply fear or I would be Dumbassphobic, another PR far winger move) but the military really would not do this, I can see civilian intelligence people doing it. But not your average set of troopies, not even near worthless reservists. It would go against the entire cultural mindset established in the Army.

If someone had done something like that in any unit I was ever a member of, they would have been ostracized, laughed at, tortured, and thrown out. Deviation from the "norm" in the military is not allowed openly, hell I used to push the limits on hair length and all 1 and a half inches of hair on my head caused me to catch flak. There was a guy in my basic training unit that got busted trying to get a cigarette and after we spent hours crawling on the ground as a platoon as a result of it, he was beaten near senseless by people using D cell batteries in socks. If he had not been a cock I would have felt bad for him since I myself wanted a smoke then, but as it was, I would have been willing to hold the SOB down if he had been in my area that night while they did it. Yeah it is a little wrong, but it should give you some idea of just how serious a break from conformity is, even a small one.

When I add to this the fact that the people in this prison were third line troopies who all had to go home and live in the same redneck West Virginia towns I find it even less likely.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » July 17, 2004, 12:45 am

You continue to want this to be about a rogue individual, which I agree is entirely unlikely. What I'm talking about is group dynamics, if everyone does something it stays within the group and your Full Metal Jacket sock beating doesn't happen.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » July 17, 2004, 12:47 am

Drasta wrote:wtf is soggy biscuit?

You don't wanna play =) http://www.google.com.au/search?q=soggy ... arch&meta=

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » July 17, 2004, 1:49 am

You can sexually assault / rape someone using an object that is not your penis.
Glass bottles, broom handles (Dhalmer died like that, right?), pens, lit cigars, pill bottles, the end of a m14 cabrine, live rodents, et al, and not necessarily be homosexual.

A sick individual that needs to be removed from society, sure...

edit: I'm tired, and I missed that he directly said sodomized, but I'm pretty sure that can be stretched to fit the above comments in my post.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » July 17, 2004, 1:39 pm

lol thats a lil umm .. weird

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » July 17, 2004, 1:52 pm

Drasta wrote:lol thats a lil umm .. weird

Drasta == Peter North!

Seriously... if you're hetero, it's not about the *amount* that stays on the cracker...

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » July 17, 2004, 4:02 pm

heh i read later that your supposed to use a biscuit on another thing .. not just a ritz cracker .. lol i don't see how that is much of a hetero game .... it sounds like something you would see in gay porn