October 10, 2005

Web site troubles Islamic group, U.S. Site trades porn for often-grisly pictures

By Vince Crawley
Times staff writer

Army investigators might be unable to pursue criminal charges in the case of an Internet site on which U.S. troops have apparently posted graphic pictures of mutilated Iraqis and Afghans in return for free access to pornography.

But an Islamic rights group warns that the practice easily could further inflame extremists targeting American troops in Iraq.

“This disgusting trade in human misery is an insult to all those who have served in our nation’s military,” said Arsalan Iftikhar, legal director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, in a letter to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

“What we’re most concerned about is the safety of our own soldiers,” Iftikhar told The Washington Post. “It only tarnishes our image even further and serves as fodder for the insurgents and terrorists.”

The Washington-based group brought the Web site to national attention in a public statement Sept. 27.

Defense and Army officials are investigating. But Paul Boyce, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon, said investigators would have little chance of building a criminal case because images are posted anonymously.

Navy Times is not publishing the Web site’s name, which includes profanity.

Photographs on the site show dead and mangled bodies. In some cases, brains or other internal organs appear to be spilling out. In other cases, bodies are charred.

Some of the earliest photos — taken before the fall of Baghdad in April 2003 — show dead Iraqi soldiers, their faces covered with flies, still in their uniforms. Dead civilians are also shown.

The authenticity of each image cannot be determined, but some of the pictures show American service members standing by or even posing with the dead. Some images are also accompanied by notes such as “Die, Haji, Die,” “Name this body part,” “Should have followed directions” or “Gotta respect the head shot.”

Others more grimly reflect the reality of war: “Kill or be killed.”

U.S. officials have expressed deep concern about the photos but are also seeking to avoid inciting public outrage. Graphic photographs of American troops abusing Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad led to deadly riots and Rumsfeld twice offering his resignation to President Bush.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., asked military leaders about the photographs during a Sept. 29 hearing on Iraq.

“What in the world is going on when we see, on the Internet, American servicemen pose against mutilated [bodies]?” Kennedy asked. “What does it say about our respect for those we are fighting? For the dead of other countries and other traditions?”

He specifically directed his question to Rumsfeld. But after a long silence, Army Gen. George Casey, senior commander in Iraq, offered a brief response.

“Senator,” Casey said, “those photos are not something that we condone. And we are taking appropriate action to make sure that practice, such as it exists, is halted.”

Boyce said that even if a suspect could be identified, the most likely charge under the Uniform Code of Military Justice would be Article 134, which governs conduct unbecoming a service member. However, he said, an offense under Article 134 is not considered a felony.

The Web site first gained notoriety last year when it began posting pictures allegedly depicting nude female U.S. troops in Iraq, a practice that continues.

Boyce said cases involving servicewomen being photographed and appearing on the site would also likely fall under Article 134. The military has blocked access to the site on overseas networks, and Boyce noted that he himself was unable to view the site because it was blocked on his Pentagon computer.

But many troops have their own personal computers in Iraq, and public cybercafes are sprouting in Baghdad and other cities, which creates additional legal hurdles for criminal investigators.

Feedback posted on the site contains a wide range of opinions about the photos. A reporter for the Online Journalism Review, published by the University of California’s Annenberg School of Journalism, corresponded by e-mail with someone alleging to have posted graphic pictures.

The anonymous person likened the images to pictures of beheadings posted on radical Islamic sites.

“What about the beheadings filmed and then put on worldwide news?” the person asked in a Sept. 20 story. “I have seen video of insurgents shooting American soldiers in plain day and thanking God for what they have done.”

The Web site came to CAIR’s attention through a Sept. 21 story by the East Bay Express, an alternative weekly serving the East San Francisco Bay area.

The newspaper interviewed site owner Chris Wilson of Florida, who described the photographs as “an unedited look at war” from the troops’ point of view.

Wilson’s site mainly deals with pictures of wives and girlfriends submitted by site visitors. In part because of the difficulty troops would have in paying the site’s fees while deployed, Wilson offered free access to troops in combat zones who send in pictures depicting their lives.

He did not specify what kinds of pictures to send.

“If you are a U.S. Soldier stationed in Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other combat area and would like free SUPPORTER access for the site, you can post real pictures you or your buddies have taken while you have been deployed,” the site says. “The pictures can be of anything over there, the only rule is that they are yours and taken by you or your friends. I do not want already published pictures that were taken by news people. This is supposed to be an area where we can see pictures posted by the soldiers themselves.”

A number of the photos submitted have been the kind of grisly shots that have incensed CAIR. Wilson has separated these images into one section of his site with a disclaimer: “This section is for the gory ones so that people who do not wish to see that kind of stuff can just not go in here.”

In his letter, Iftikhar pressed Rumsfeld to launch a full investigation into “this troubling phenomenon and do whatever is necessary to bring it to an end.”

At press time, Rumsfeld had not responded to the letter.

An amendment to the Geneva Conventions calls for respect of victims’ remains in occupation and combat scenarios, but neither the U.S. nor Iraq has ratified this 1977 provision.

Wilson said his policy is not to post photos that show American war dead.

The thread begs the question ....... linky?

Bring out your dead!

you know, i'll give a fuck what cair says right after they start complaining about al-jizz and their beheading videos...fuck 'em all and the camel they rode in on.

What's the website?  (Edited) I'm guessing it's not ogrish.com.

Porn and dead Tango pics on the same website? Damn, I bet it's operated by an arf.com member!!! LOL. That sort of thing is right up our alley!

link

tag for home

Quoted: you know, i'll give a fuck what cair says right after they start complaining about al-jizz and their beheading videos...fuck 'em all and the camel they rode in on.

1++

You don't want to go to the site anyway - some g-nasty women on there.

nowthatsfuckedup

Quoted: You don't want to go to the site anyway - some g-nasty women on there.

Yes there are some nasty looking ones, but there still a lot of hot ones there.

Release of the photographs and videos, even in redacted form," Myers wrote in an affidavit, "will very likely lead to riots and violence across the Middle East, posing grave risk to both military forces and civilians."

Whats the big deal? Our own courts are forcing pic's to be released, they are not doing anything that is not already backed by US Court's.

I have mixed emotions on this one.


Bomber

Sorry as much as I think any islamo jihadist should die, at a point there should be a line that you don't cross. I mean come on we are fucking America. We have some morals I hope.

Just went and had a peak,ya,not for the squeamish,although nice to see our boys over there are doing some good work

PS,dont click on any links having to do with crackwhores,trust me

Don't find a link to the site in question . . . just to more stories about it.

Quoted: Don't find a link to the site in question . . . just to more stories about it.

look above for the site name.

there's also another one without the porn. it's a site that all sorts of .mil pics are posted on incl iraqi sunsets, pics of kids, camels, buds. and dead rags.

wasn't there a thread in the deployed forum from a-stan showing the ballistic effects of the 5.56 on the human grape?

ETA: removed hot link.

Quoted: Quoted: Don't find a link to the site in question . . . just to more stories about it. link removed there's also another one without the porn. it's a site that all sorts of .mil pics are posted on incl iraqi sunsets, pics of kids, camels, buds. and dead rags. wasn't there a thread in the deployed forum from a-stan showing the ballistic effects of the 5.56 on the human grape?

You need to get rid of that link.

Kennedy asked. “What does it say about our respect for those we are fighting? For the dead of other countries and other traditions?”

Due to the CoC I'm just going to point out this sentance, without adding comments.

Can we get t-shirts with dead terrorists on them?