Government Defies an Order to Release Iraq Abuse Photos

mykevermin

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (97%)
By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: July 23, 2005

Lawyers for the Defense Department are refusing to cooperate with a federal judge's order to release secret photographs and videotapes related to the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal.

The lawyers said in a letter sent to the federal court in Manhattan late Thursday that they would file a sealed brief explaining their reasons for not turning over the material, which they were to have released by yesterday.

The photographs were some of thousands turned over by Specialist Joseph M. Darby, the whistle-blower who exposed the abuse at Abu Ghraib by giving investigators computer disks containing photographs and videos of prisoners being abused, sexually humiliated and threatened with growling dogs.

The small number of the photographs released in spring 2004 provoked international outrage at the American military.

In early June, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of Federal District Court in Manhattan ordered the release of the additional photographs, part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union to determine the extent of abuse at American military prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan and at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

The government has turned over more than 60,000 pages of documents on the treatment of detainees, some containing graphic descriptions of mistreatment. But the material that the judge ordered released - the A.C.L.U. says there are 87 photographs and 4 videos - would be the first images released in the suit. The judge said they would be the "best evidence" in the debate about the treatment of Abu Ghraib prisoners.

"There is another dimension to a picture that is of much greater moment and immediacy" than a document, Judge Hellerstein said in court.

He rejected arguments from the government that releasing the photographs would violate the Geneva Conventions because prisoners might be identified and "further humiliated," but he ordered any identifying features to be removed from the images.

In the letter sent Thursday, Sean Lane, an assistant United States attorney, said that the government was withholding the photographs because they "could result in harm to individuals," and that it would outline the reasons in a sealed brief to the court.

The A.C.L.U. accused the government of continuing to stonewall requests for information "of critical public interest."

"The government chose the last possible moment to raise this argument," said Amrit Singh, a staff lawyer with the A.C.L.U.

"Because it is under seal, we don't know whether their reasons are adequate," Ms. Singh said.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/23/p...=1122145359-GbXII8isVAO6PVYbKvO0hQ&oref=login

The word on the street is sodomy of young boys. We're already well past "putting underwear on some guy's head," to use Sean Hannity's interpretation of the situation.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The word on the street is sodomy of young boys. We're already well past "putting underwear on some guy's head," to use Sean Hannity's interpretation of the situation.[/QUOTE]

That would not be surprising given the depravity evidenced by the photos already released.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']He rejected arguments from the government that releasing the photographs would violate the Geneva Conventions...[/QUOTE]
Would these be the Geneva Conventions that the government has repeatedly said don't apply, or are these some OTHER set of Geneva Conventions which say its just fine to torture people but completely wrong to release photographs documenting that torture?

In other news, Bush threatens to veto next year's military budget if it contains anything that would regulate America's treatment of military prisoners. Because while what happened Abu Ghraib was merely the actions of a few bad eggs acting outside military rules, it would be absolutely awful if there were actual rules forbidding what they did. Or something like that.

If Bush DOES veto the budget, it would be the first item that Bush has ever vetoed. That means that Bush's only veto would be against a bill forbidding the military to torture people. Think about that for a while.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, not if he gets to veto gov't funding of stem cell research first.[/QUOTE]

Come on myke, you haven't fallen for that propaganda, have you?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Come on myke, you haven't fallen for that propaganda, have you?[/QUOTE]

The propaganda that it should be funded by the government, or that he'd actually veto anything including funding?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The propaganda that it should be funded by the government, or that he'd actually veto anything including funding?[/QUOTE]

Found this when I typed "abu ghraib" into google. It was the first story in the section at the top where they post relevant news articles.

NEW YORK So what is shown on the 87 photographs and four videos from Abu Ghraib prison that the Pentagon, in an eleventh hour move, blocked from release this weekend? One clue: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Congress last year, after viewing a large cache of unreleased images: "I mean, I looked at them last night, and they're hard to believe.” They show acts "that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhumane," he added.

A Republican Senator suggested the same day they contained scenes of “rape and murder.” No wonder Rumsfeld commented then, "If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse."

Yesterday, news emerged that lawyers for the Pentagon had refused to cooperate with a federal judge's order to release dozens of unseen photographs and videos from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq by Saturday. The photos were among thousands turned over by the key “whistleblower” in the scandal, Specialist Joseph M. Darby. Just a few that were released to the press sparked the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal last year, and the video images are said to be even more shocking.

The Pentagon lawyers said in a letter sent to the federal court in Manhattan that they would file a sealed brief explaining their reasons for not turning over the material. They had been ordered to do so by a federal judge in response to a FOIA lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU accused the government Friday of putting another legal roadblock in the way of its bid to allow the public to see the images of the prisoner abuse scandal.

One Pentagon lawyer has argued that they should not be released because they would only add to the humiliation of the prisoners. But the ACLU has said the faces of the victims can easily be "redacted."

To get a sense of what may be shown in these images, one has to go back to press reports from when the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal was still front page news.

This is how CNN reported it on May 8, 2004, in a typical account that day:

“U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld revealed Friday that videos and ‘a lot more pictures’ exist of the abuse of Iraqis held at Abu Ghraib prison.

"’If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse,’ Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee. ‘I mean, I looked at them last night, and they're hard to believe.’

“The embattled defense secretary fielded sharp and skeptical questions from lawmakers as he testified about the growing prisoner abuse scandal. A military report about that abuse describes detainees being threatened, sodomized with a chemical light and forced into sexually humiliating poses.

“Charges have been brought against seven service members, and investigations into events at the prison continue.

“Military investigators have looked into -- or are continuing to investigate -- 35 cases of alleged abuse or deaths of prisoners in detention facilities in the Central Command theater, according to Army Secretary Les Brownlee. Two of those cases were deemed homicides, he said.

"’The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience,’ Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told reporters after Rumsfeld testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. ’We're talking about rape and murder -- and some very serious charges.’

“A report by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba on the abuse at the prison outside Baghdad says videotapes and photographs show naked detainees, and that groups of men were forced to masturbate while being photographed and videotaped. Taguba also found evidence of a ‘male MP guard having sex with a female detainee.’

“Rumsfeld told Congress the unrevealed photos and videos contain acts 'that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman.’”

The military later screened some of the images for lawmakers, who said they showed, among other things, attack dogs snarling at cowed prisoners, Iraqi women forced to expose their breasts, and naked prisoners forced to have sex with each other.

In the same period, reporter Seymour Hersh, who helped uncover the scandal, said in a speech before an ACLU convention: “Some of the worse that happened that you don't know about, ok? Videos, there are women there. Some of you may have read they were passing letters, communications out to their men….The women were passing messages saying ‘Please come and kill me, because of what's happened.’

“Basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys/children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. The worst about all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror it's going to come out.”



http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000990590
 
Ugh I swear to God I am so fucking sick of this. We have an Adminstration that thinks TORTURE will get results when FBI or CIA people testify it makes it worse and you LESS reliable information because they'll tell you anything to make it stop.
Is this just some wiring in this Administrations brain that if they don't ABSOLUTELY torture people they consider Terrorists they're not doing their job as Conservatives? I can hear it now from PAD. Bravo.
I don't get this mentality. El I doubt you're sadistic so I won't point a finger at you but these people. You have a prison warden in the U.S. who made his prisoners eat RANCID Bologna and charged them for it and one of these harsh wardens was found guilty of something. Also I doubt this warden could take the punishment he doled out. What is wrong with these people?! Jeez they act like treating someone unlike an animal is unthinkable.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The propaganda that it should be funded by the government, or that he'd actually veto anything including funding?[/QUOTE]

The propaganda that Bush has banned stem cell research or even has banned government funding of it when he's the first president to allow it (under limitations, of course). And with a Republican-controlled Congress and Bush's refusal to use anything other than words to try to reign in runaway spending, I'm not expecting a veto anytime soon.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']The propaganda that Bush has banned stem cell research or even has banned government funding of it when he's the first president to allow it (under limitations, of course). And with a Republican-controlled Congress and Bush's refusal to use anything other than words to try to reign in runaway spending, I'm not expecting a veto anytime soon.[/QUOTE]

Oh, no, I'm referring to his threats to veto government funding of full stem-cell research, not simply the "cord blood" variety.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/20/politics/main696810.shtml

That would be the veto on a bill that "loosens restrictions." I am aware that it does exist, and it is funded, in a very limited manner, at the moment. This is a veto that he has threatened. Now, about that propoganda, what part of it was I falling victim to?
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Ugh I swear to God I am so fucking sick of this. We have an Adminstration that thinks TORTURE will get results when FBI or CIA people testify it makes it worse and you LESS reliable information because they'll tell you anything to make it stop.
Is this just some wiring in this Administrations brain that if they don't ABSOLUTELY torture people they consider Terrorists they're not doing their job as Conservatives? I can hear it now from PAD. Bravo.
I don't get this mentality. El I doubt you're sadistic so I won't point a finger at you but these people. You have a prison warden in the U.S. who made his prisoners eat RANCID Bologna and charged them for it and one of these harsh wardens was found guilty of something. Also I doubt this warden could take the punishment he doled out. What is wrong with these people?! Jeez they act like treating someone unlike an animal is unthinkable.[/QUOTE]

Just when I was about to forget; you remind me that sitting there and just asking the person nicely will surely elicit the "reliable information."
 
[quote name='Rich']Just when I was about to forget; you remind me that sitting there and just asking the person nicely will surely elicit the "reliable information."[/QUOTE]

There's a middle ground between that and torture. Torture gets you what you want to hear, whether that's accurate or not is usually meaningless to the one being tortured. Even the inquisition knew this, any confession made during torture had to be repeated well after torture had been completed, otherwise it was not valid.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Oh, no, I'm referring to his threats to veto government funding of full stem-cell research, not simply the "cord blood" variety.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/20/politics/main696810.shtml

That would be the veto on a bill that "loosens restrictions." I am aware that it does exist, and it is funded, in a very limited manner, at the moment. This is a veto that he has threatened. Now, about that propoganda, what part of it was I falling victim to?[/QUOTE]

Evidently none. I thought you were speaking as so many ignorant folks do about Bush stopping all stem cell research. Brilliant although disgustingly dishonest politics from the Democats during the last election cycle.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Brilliant although disgustingly dishonest politics from the Democats during the last election cycle.[/QUOTE]

YOU STARTED IT!!!!!

ikik
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Evidently none. I thought you were speaking as so many ignorant folks do about Bush stopping all stem cell research. Brilliant although disgustingly dishonest politics from the Democats during the last election cycle.[/QUOTE]

No middle ground on this issue. You support it or you don't.

People are sick of Bush W's flip-flopping
 
[quote name='elprincipe']:lol: Who is "you"?[/QUOTE]

Well, if I am to play the role of partisan hack (which I won't deny), then "you" can simply be transformed to be "not me."

It doesn't matter specifically who started it, but it sure wasn't me!
:lol:
 
[quote name='Mouse']Look at the purty penguins... I want to see that...[/QUOTE]

I'm going this week. It looks like a fantastic movie.

Each winter, alone in the pitiless ice deserts of Antarctica, deep in the most inhospitable terrain on Earth, a truly remarkable journey takes place as it has done for millennia. Emperor penguins in their thousands abandon the deep blue security of their ocean home and clamber onto the frozen ice to begin their long journey into a region so bleak, so extreme, it supports no other wildlife at this time of year. In single file, the penguins march blinded by blizzards, buffeted by gale force winds. Resolute, indomitable, driven by the overpowering urge to reproduce, to assure the survival of the species.

Guided by instinct, by the otherworldly radiance of the Southern Cross, they head unerringly for their traditional breeding ground where - after a ritual courtship of intricate dances and delicate maneuvering, accompanied by a cacophony of ecstatic song - they will pair off into monogamous couples and mate.

The days grow shorter, the weather ever more bitter. The females remain long enough only to lay a single egg. Once this is accomplished, exhausted by weeks without nourishment, they begin their return journey across the ice-field to the fish-filled seas. The journey is hazardous, and rapacious leopard seals a predatory threat. The male emperors are left behind to guard and hatch the precious eggs, which they cradle at all times on top of their feet. Subjected to subzero temperatures and the terrible trials of the polar winter, they too face great dangers.

After two long months during which the males eat nothing, the eggs begin to hatch. Once they have emerged into their ghostly white new world, the chicks can not survive for long on their fathers' limited food reserves. If their mothers are late returning from the ocean with food, the newly-hatched young will die.

Once the families are reunited, the roles reverse, the mothers remaining with their new young while their mates head, exhausted and starved, for the sea, and food. While the adults fish, the chicks face the ever-present threat of attack by prowling giant petrels. As the weather grows warmer and the ice floes finally begin to crack and melt, the adults will repeat their arduous journey countless times, marching many hundreds of miles over some of the most treacherous territory on Earth, until the chicks are ready to take their first faltering dive into the deep blue waters of the Antarctic.
 
[quote name='Rich']I'm going this week. It looks like a fantastic movie.[/QUOTE]

I want to see that so bad, but I don't have a little kid to take with me. I sucked it up and went to see stever irwins crocodile hunter movie alone, but this is a bit much. At least I have a home theatre setup, the sound is better here than a lot of the theatres, but I still won't be able to compete with the screen.

Maybe I should just kidnap a kid for the day?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I want to see that so bad, but I don't have a little kid to take with me. I sucked it up and went to see stever irwins crocodile hunter movie alone, but this is a bit much. At least I have a home theatre setup, the sound is better here than a lot of the theatres, but I still won't be able to compete with the screen.

Maybe I should just kidnap a kid for the day?[/QUOTE]

Only if you eat him afterwards.

I'm going with a friend this week.

Two college students walk in to see a penguin documentary; only one walks out.
(cuz the other is still inside crying for the penguin babies)

Besides, how many people are actually going to go see a penguin documentary? Noone will know!
 
[quote name='Drocket']Wow, I don't know if I've ever seen such a shameless attempt to change the subject away from one damaging to Bush.[/QUOTE]

?

I haven't read any this thread. It was just the most recently updated Vs. thread and I was on the penguin site.
 
[quote name='Rich']?

I haven't read any this thread. It was just the most recently updated Vs. thread and I was on the penguin site.[/QUOTE]

Um, you haven't read this thread? I hate to tell you this, but YOU ALREADY POSTED IN THIS THREAD. Does this sound familiar?

[quote name='Rich']Just when I was about to forget; you remind me that sitting there and just asking the person nicely will surely elicit the "reliable information."[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='Drocket']Um, you haven't read this thread? I hate to tell you this, but YOU ALREADY POSTED IN THIS THREAD. Does this sound familiar?[/QUOTE]

:lol:

Oh snap, i did.

I stopped reading after the long delay between responses after alonzo's response to me.
 
No wonder Bush wanted soldiers exempt from being prosecuted under war crimes. This is unbelievable. How can right-wing conservatives be convinced that God is on our side?
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Hey Bush banned cameras in military prisons so as far as he's concerned, the problem is solved.[/QUOTE]

So true. Banning cameras was the right thing to do, but for all the wrong reasons.
 
bread's done
Back
Top