The Missing Abu Ghraib Photos

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Back in 2006, Salon published 279 photos and 19 videos depicting detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. But the website was quick to warn readers of the images’ “limitations”—the Army’s Criminal Investigation Command [CID] had produced two reports, one in Tikrit, Iraq on June 6, 2004, and one a month later in Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

The Tikrit CID report analyzed some 1,300 images and over 90 videos of possible detainee abuse. But only around 280 videos and 19 videos were analyzed in the second report—numbers that correspond to the images Salon published. “It remains unclear,” Salon warned in 2006, “why and how the CID narrowed its set of forensic evidence to the 279 images and 19 videos that we reproduce here.” But if the Pentagon ever had more images of Abu Ghraib abuse, it doesn’t have them now. “The Department of Defense is unaware of any images or video of potential abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib that have not already been made public,” a Pentagon spokesman tells Mother Jones, echoing earlier statements.

I speculated yesterday that the discrepancy might stem from the Pentagon’s claim that many (separate) images that the ACLU is seeking in a lawsuit depict what at first glance appears to be abuse but was determined not to be—pre-existing bruises or injuries to detainees, for example. That could still be the case. I’ve asked Salon‘s Mark Benjamin, who first asked the Pentagon about whether there were more Abu Ghraib photos and got a similar response, if he can help me figure out what happened to the images from the first CID report. I haven’t heard back yet, but I’ll post his response if and when I get one. I’m also following up with the Pentagon.

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate