"Be on notice," Mr Rumsfeld said in a standing-room-only Senate hearing room on May 8. "There are a lot more photographs and videos that exist. If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse."

At the Jan. 15 meeting, Kellenberger told Powell, "We have serious concerns about detainees in Iraq," although he did not detail them, a senior State Department official said. The next month, the Red Cross summarized its previous findings in a harsh 24-page confidential critique of abuses against Iraqi detainees between March and November 2003, calling some of them "tantamount to torture."

The report described an inspection of the Abu Ghraib prison in mid-October in which Red Cross officials witnessed detainees who were undergoing interrogation being kept "completely naked in totally empty cells and in total darkness." A military intelligence officer said this practice was "part of the process."

The Red Cross reported that as punishment, detainees were made to walk in the corridors naked or with women's underwear on their heads. It also complained of "brutality" against detainees, "sometimes causing death or serious injury."

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said yesterday that he and other top officials kept President Bush "fully informed ... in general terms" about complaints made by the Red Cross and others over ill-treatment of detainees in U.S. custody.

Powell's statement suggests Bush may have known earlier than the White House has acknowledged about complaints raised by the International Committee of the Red Cross and human rights groups regarding abuse of detainees in Iraq.

May 5: President Bush gives interviews to two Arab-language networks, saying that he and the American people were appalled by the revelations

The scandal continues to escalate as more photos and videos are released.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1221724,00.html


Will the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal ultimately cost Bush his reelection? Or will it have not have a detrimental on his chances of winning?

QUOTE 
May 5: President Bush gives interviews to two Arab-language networks, saying that he and the American people were appalled by the revelations



So that means that Bush knew about this back in January, however he acted shocked and appalled by it in May and scolded Rumsfeld for not telling him. Hmm, sounds like we caught him in a lie.

Nothing in the provided timeline says anything about Bush (or Rumsfeld, for that matter) being told anything in January either.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said yesterday that he and other top officials kept President Bush "fully informed ... in general terms" about complaints made by the Red Cross and others over ill-treatment of detainees in U.S. custody.

Powell's statement suggests Bush may have known earlier than the White House has acknowledged about complaints raised by the International Committee of the Red Cross and human rights groups regarding abuse of detainees in Iraq.

(CBS/AP) President Bush has privately scolded Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for his handling of the Iraq prison abuse allegations, White House officials said.

snip...

The Times reports Mr. Bush was upset that Rumsfeld had not told him about the photographs before they were broadcast.

"The president was not satisfied or happy about the way he was informed about the pictures, and he did talk to Secretary Rumsfeld about it," an official told The Times.

Rumsfeld himself did not know about the images of naked prisoners and gloating U.S. soldiers until the broadcast, a senior White House official said.

President Bush and military officials have said the abuses were isolated incidents by a few low-ranking soldiers.

In an interview with Al-Arabiya TV, Bush said "the practices that took place in that prison are abhorrent and they don't represent America. They represent the actions of a few people

Abuse of Captives More Widespread, Says Army Survey

ASHINGTON, May 25 — An Army summary of deaths and mistreatment involving prisoners in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan shows a widespread pattern of abuse involving more military units than previously known.

The cases from Iraq date back to April 15, 2003, a few days after Saddam Hussein's statue was toppled in a Baghdad square, and they extend up to last month, when a prisoner detained by Navy commandos died in a suspected case of homicide blamed on "blunt force trauma to the torso and positional asphyxia."

Among previously unknown incidents are the abuse of detainees by Army interrogators from a National Guard unit attached to the Third Infantry Division, who are described in a document obtained by The New York Times as having "forced into asphyxiation numerous detainees in an attempt to obtain information" during a 10-week period last spring.

The document, dated May 5, is a synopsis prepared by the Criminal Investigation Command at the request of Army officials grappling with intense scrutiny prompted by the circulation the preceding week of photographs of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. It lists the status of investigations into three dozen cases, including the continuing investigation into the notorious abuses at Abu Ghraib.

Since the scandal broke, the Administration has said that, in Iraq, it always insisted on following the Geneva Conventions on humane treatment for prisoners. However, in a letter to the Red Cross dated December 24, 2003, the Bush Administration asserted that detainees in Iraq "were not entitled to the full protections of the Geneva Convention" 2. This disregard for internationally-recognized human rights regulations was consistent with a January 2002 directive by the White House labeling the Geneva Conventions "quaint" and "obsolete" 3. It is also consistent with a Newsweek report showing that "President Bush, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft signed off on a secret system of detention and interrogation that opened the door to such methods" of abuse and torture as documented at Abu Ghraib 4. Those secret orders were designed "to sidestep the historical safeguards of the Geneva Conventions."

Instead of acknowledging these documents and upholding his pledge to "usher in an era of personal responsibility,"5 the Bush Administration is now assaulting those who brought the story to light. Sgt. Samuel Provance told the Associated Press he has "been disciplined by the military and stripped of his security clearance" after he publicly refuted the President's claims that the abuse was only the work of a few soldiers6. Meanwhile, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld banned "digital cameras, camcorders and cellphones with cameras" from all military installations in Iraq7. And, as MSNBC reports, the whole Administration is "lashing out at American journalists, adding their official voices to the chorus of talk radio, conservative Web site and newspaper columnists" who claim the media's coverage of the scandal and Iraq in general "is undermining support for the war"8.

This scandal has certainly imperiled Bush's campaign. But it is cumulative with the effects of the domestic job crisis, corporate outsourcing, unreported budget additions for the war in the tens of billions of dollars, tell-all books by former administration officials, resistance to Congressional investigations, soaring gasoline prices, unfunded and underfunded legislative mandate programs (the latter including the Department of Homeland Security), the incursion of government and loss of freedom of privacy (the Patriot Act), alienation of segments of the American population (e.g., gays), indefinitely extended terms of duty as well as the mounting deaths of American military personnel that will make this a squeaker for the President if he actually pulls it off. (Edited to say: Oh, and did I mention the environment?)

To many, this administration appears to have no cogent plan in any area benefitting Americans, unless they are corporate leaders or belong to the Religious Right. But even part of the Religious Right has to be appalled by the photos and testimony of abuse of Iraqi prisoners/detainees in Abu Ghraib prison due to the lack of supervision.

Quite a list. You forgot that people with 'black sounding names' can't vote in Florida or something. Way to get those talking points in!
-- carlitoswhey

Critics said Florida used out-of-state lists to purge former felons, taking their voting rights away although they had been restored in the state where the crimes had been committed. Florida is among a handful of states that does not automatically restore voting rights of convicted criminals once they leave prison.

Others complained that they were erroneously purged from the rolls because their name was identical or similar to a felon. Critics said blacks were disproportionately affected.

In 2000, some local supervisors refused to purge their rolls because they said they had no faith in how the state compiled its list of disqualified voters.

...

"We feel confident that the same mistakes made in 2000 will not be repeated," Nash said Wednesday.

However, some supervisors question why the administration is making the move this close to the election. Florida's primary is Aug. 31 and the general election is Nov. 2.

-- WFTV article