Weighing in on this issue, I think the pictures are on the borderline of what we should put inline, but should probably stay. The sexually explicit parts have been blurred out anyway, so they're not problematic on that account.
I like the way [[clitoris]] has been handled generally (no pun intended), though perhaps there's a better way of doing it. Having it a simple link makes it so that anyone can easily find it (an on-site link, so it doesn't depend on an external server), but so that people who are reading the article don't have to have it in their peripheral vision the whole time if they find it uncomfortable for whatever reason.
Conceptually disturbing images are somewhat different than graphic ones. People might be disturbed by pictures of concetration camps, but these are more conceptually disturbing than graphic, and are fairly integral to an article on, say, the [[Holocaust]]. On the other hand, if there were gruesome pictures of medical experiments being performed, we might want to put those on as linked instead of inline.
The main reason I'd favor that approach is that otherwise there'll be whole sections of Wikipedia that people are somewhat afraid to visit, especially in public areas. Someone should be able to read [[torture]] without seeing graphic images of torture; they should be able to read [[automobile accident]] without seeing bloody corpses plastered on the roadway, and so on. If the picture might be useful, they ought to be able to see it, but that should be up to them.
But back to the point, I think the [[Abu Graith]] images in particular are okay, though perhaps some better placement is possible. Although I've wrangled on that page a bit myself, I do think they currently come across in a moderately documentary tone, rather than a pursuasive tone intended to shock the reader into a particular action.
-Mark