Salon.com Challenges NY Times' Abu Ghraib "Scoop

[kpete]

The New York Times announced Monday night that it would review the accuracy of a recent Page One story that claimed to identify the hooded detainee shown in one of the most iconic photos of abuse from Abu Ghraib, after Salon presented evidence suggesting that the paper had identified the wrong man.

In an apparent scoop on Saturday, the Times reported that Ali Shalal Qaissi, a former Baath Party member, had been photographed standing on a cardboard box, hooded, with his arms spread, a blanket around his shoulders and electrical wires extending from his hands.

...............

But Army documents obtained by Salon contradict the Times' account. An official report by the Army's Criminal Investigation Command (CID) concluded that the photo the Times said showed Qaissi actually showed another detainee, named Saad, whose full name is being withheld by Salon to protect his identity. According to the official report, this second detainee was nicknamed "Gilligan" by military police at Abu Ghraib.

.............................

In an e-mail interview, a spokesman for CID confirmed that investigators had concluded the photograph shown on the front page of the Times was not Qaissi. "We have had several detainees claim they were the person depicted in the photograph in question," the CID spokesman told Salon. "Our investigation indicates that the person you have cited from the NY Times is not the detainee who was depicted in the photograph."

http://salon.com/news/feature/2006/03/14/torture_photo/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/03/14/saloncom-challeng_n_17271.html

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. The picture did not come out of nowhere.

There could have been any number of detainees who got the exact same treatment, though only a single picture was taken.

[Canuckistanian]

2. How can you tell for sure?

It's not like the detainee (prisoner) himself knew for sure. And this kind of treatment may have been done to DOZENS of detainees.

The only way to know for sure is to see the results of an internal ivestigation.

And we all know when that's coming.

[Just Me]

3. Gee, why would they incorrectly identify as a "former Baath Party member"?

Ya' suppose it was to somehow justify the torture by characterizing the tortured as a really REALLY bad guy?

:grr:

Shit like this proves to me our media is tainted by intentional propagandizing.

:grr:

[Richard Steele]

4. So why is ANYONE assuming that this only happened to ONE guy?

I have no reason to doubt that quite a few
AbuGhraib victims have looked at that photo
and thought, "Yes, I remember when they did that to me".

The "several detainees" who have claimed to be in that
photo are likely to honestly believe their claims.

[depakid]

5. As if the Times has any credibility left

Their claim to fame these days is that they haven't sunk as low as the Washington Post.

Though not from lack of trying....

[MrPrax]

6. Is this MORE bought coverage?

What a minute...the Military is sure that the report in the NYTimes and their 'boy' are wrong, but won't give out the name (they KNOW who it is, of course)...and Salon, given a name, won't publish it...

Um---shouldn't Salon get confirmation other than the US military in an e-mail interview

From the Story:
A lawyer representing Qaissi confirmed to Salon Monday night that the Times had made a mistake. "He believes that there are two different people depicted in the photographs," said Jonathan Pyle, of Burke Pyle LLC. "Ali believes that the picture of himself is the one with his arms pointed diagonally down." Qaissi uses this photograph on his business card.


AHHH...so one of the pictures is him, but not THAT particular picture? Oh...and instead of a correction for the NY Times, Salon is splitting hairs.

Very Very Strange for a magazine that bragged about having an exclusive just last month:
...
The source who gave the CID material to Salon is someone who spent time at Abu Ghraib as a uniformed member of the military and is familiar with the CID investigation.

The DVD containing the material includes a June 6, 2004, CID investigation report written by Special Agent James E. Seigmund. That report includes the following summary of the material included: "A review of all the computer media submitted to this office revealed a total of 1,325 images of suspected detainee abuse, 93 video files of suspected detainee abuse, 660 images of adult pornography, 546 images of suspected dead Iraqi detainees, 29 images of soldiers in simulated sexual acts, 20 images of a soldier with a Swastika drawn between his eyes, 37 images of Military Working dogs being used in abuse of detainees and 125 images of questionable acts."

The photographs we are showing in the accompanying galleryrepresent a small fraction of these visual materials. None, as far as we know, have been published elsewhere. They include: a naked, handcuffed prisoner in a contorted position; a dead prisoner who had been severely beaten; a prisoner apparently sodomizing himself with an object; and a naked, hooded prisoner standing next to an American officer who is blandly writing a report against a wall. Other photographs depict a bloody cell.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/02/16/abu_ghraib/
___________________

So Salon is sitting on a whole whack of 'material' that COULD be 'exposed', but doesn't, preferring instead to investigate the NY Times over what is basically a mislabeled photograph.

NOTE From the Current Story:
"The documents were among many photos and files obtained by Salon last month, from a uniformed member of the military who spent time at Abu Ghraib and is familiar with the CID probe...

Up to this point, the investigations by the U.S. military, and statements by military police, have indicated that there was only one detainee, the man named Saad, who was forced to stand on a cardboard box with wires connected to his hands. This detainee was suspected of involvement in the kidnapping and murder of two U.S. soldiers. According to Army documents, Saad was being held by CID, the same military agency that would later lead the investigation into abuse at the prison."

AHHH...well that clarifies things--the old story was that the guy misidentified was basically an 'innocent with a poor backstory' and who is suing and the new guy, Saad, is 'bad terrorist with a good backstory'.

The ONLY thing confirmed here by Salon is what the Army thinks...