Abu Ghraib was also a "CIA blacksite." There were reports at the time from the soldiers (not CIA) guarding the prison about men being brought in, removed by civilian-appearing men, loud screams and other things indicating torture happening in nearby adjacent buildings to the prison, and often the men taken away were not returned to custody of the Army. The CIA was told to give a report and all of that on their involvement at Abu Ghraib, but, why would they do that? No one was ever gonna make them. So, that just never happened. The only reason Abu Ghraib soldiers saw any consequences at all (arguably, I suppose) is because it exposed/embarrassed the CIA. They were fucking livid that these dipshits were taking pictures at their "body laundering" or "ghosting" site. I'd have to go look for the report, but I remember one reporter/cameraman saying when news first broke, the CIA went around basically promised amnesty to all the Americans and anyone working in the area that if they have any photos or videos at all surrender them to the CIA and nothing will come of it. According to that guy, the only reason we even have the photos we do have is because of security fuck ups that someone misplaced a storage card or something like that (been a while since I listened to the explanation). They either destroyed or confiscated and put away forever all the other stuff probably including their own torture evidence.
NYT seems to be condemning this treatment by implication. They mostly ignored when the Israelis were and are doing this. It was like an Abu Ghraib every fucking day for a while there just day after day pictures of naked Palestinian men (and boys) chained together outside
And 3) style note: stop fucking putting periods in abbreviations. CIA, USA, whatever else, is acceptable. Dumbass style guide people at newspapers stuck in 1950s on a "rule" no cared about even then
Few things:
Abu Ghraib was also a "CIA blacksite." There were reports at the time from the soldiers (not CIA) guarding the prison about men being brought in, removed by civilian-appearing men, loud screams and other things indicating torture happening in nearby adjacent buildings to the prison, and often the men taken away were not returned to custody of the Army. The CIA was told to give a report and all of that on their involvement at Abu Ghraib, but, why would they do that? No one was ever gonna make them. So, that just never happened. The only reason Abu Ghraib soldiers saw any consequences at all (arguably, I suppose) is because it exposed/embarrassed the CIA. They were fucking livid that these dipshits were taking pictures at their "body laundering" or "ghosting" site. I'd have to go look for the report, but I remember one reporter/cameraman saying when news first broke, the CIA went around basically promised amnesty to all the Americans and anyone working in the area that if they have any photos or videos at all surrender them to the CIA and nothing will come of it. According to that guy, the only reason we even have the photos we do have is because of security fuck ups that someone misplaced a storage card or something like that (been a while since I listened to the explanation). They either destroyed or confiscated and put away forever all the other stuff probably including their own torture evidence.
NYT seems to be condemning this treatment by implication. They mostly ignored when the Israelis were and are doing this. It was like an Abu Ghraib every fucking day for a while there just day after day pictures of naked Palestinian men (and boys) chained together outside
And 3) style note: stop fucking putting periods in abbreviations. CIA, USA, whatever else, is acceptable. Dumbass style guide people at newspapers stuck in 1950s on a "rule" no cared about even then