At the present time there appears to be no proof that cameras are indeed banned now, but we will know soon enough.

However, there are huge differences between the Pentagon versus private employers banning cameras. Private employers have valid business secrets to keep. The Pentagon has valid reasons to keep some things secret but that doesn't extend to violations of the Geneva Accords, which should be exposed on moral and humanitarian grounds. If private employers tortured people they should be similarly exposed. To compare the two situations as analogous (Pentagon versus private employer) is to deflect attention from the meat of the matter: the Pentagon banning cameras can only be seen as a bald attempt to cover up atrocities. Does anyone believe that the systematic torture by humiliation and intimidation would have ended yet if no photos had gotten out?

It's almost amusing to observe the layers of the chain of command attempting to immunize themselves against charges of torture. Generals lamenting that the chain of command broke down under their watch, Rumsfeld taking the heat for Bush AS IF Bush hadn't been fully aware of it all along. Bush is the man with the record of most executions under his watch as Governor of Texas remember, he gets off on suffering and death. I think Bush is a soulless psychopath, devoid of empathy, and that he has been fully complicit in authorizing Geneva Accord violations. Of course he has maintained 'plausible deniability' and Rumsfeld is taking the blame for him, the deal being that Bush doesn't throw him out! If Bush had the capacity to feel any kind of moral outrage at the torture photos, he would have fired Rumsfeld already.