Abu Ghraib Photos???????????

[brettdale]

I thought they were suppose to be released? I cant find nothing about them?

[jn2375]

1. Still waiting too

[stevedeshazer]

2. *tapping foot*

:wtf:

[BamaLefty]

3. Makes A Fella Wonder...

n/t

[brainshrub]

4. If they release them, it will be at 8pm PST.

I suspect that they won't release them until after the 4th of July holiday.

[soulcore]

5. i've been waiting all day

wasn't this issued by court order...?

[Warren DeMontague]

6. Cue Jeopardy Music...

Dum, Dum, Dum, Dum, Dum-Dum-Dum...

[Bluesplayer]

7. anyone have a link to the old ones?

[Walt Starr]

8. 1000 to 1 says we won't see 'em until tomorrow

as the Friday bad news dump.

[Warren DeMontague]

9. Shit, Walt, You're Obviously an Optimist...

I'd lay similar odds that we won't see 'em at all.

[brettdale]

10. the person who did the original post

Seemed 100% certain that they will be released today, perhaps they will release late, once the nightly news shows are over?

[Warren DeMontague]

43. The court order regarding the ACLU FOIA requests:

Stipulated that the army had "Until June 30, 2005" to process what we are told are 144 photos and videos.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8078240/#storyContinued


Judge Alvin Hellerstein of the U.S. District Court in Manhattan late Wednesday ordered the Defense Department to process 144 photographs by June 30.

The photographs and videos, to be edited so the faces of soldiers are not shown, were provided by Sgt. Joseph Darby, whose photos set off the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal more than a year ago.

I have no doubt that's what they are supposed to do. My doubt as to whether or not it actually happens has more to do with the track record of this Administration and their flunkies.

[swag]

11. A close reading of the court order shows that release was not

ordered for today, only redaction and reprocessing.

http://www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=18396

[Synnical]

15. ACLU Press Release - June 2, 2005

The court order filed late yesterday requires the government by June 30 to reprocess and redact 144 detainee abuse photographs provided by Sergeant Joseph Darby to the Army’s Criminal Investigation Command. The order also requires the government to provide the court with an estimate of the length of time it will take to reprocess and redact four movies included as part of the Darby collection by June 10. The decision comes after the court privately viewed eight of the images from the Darby collection to determine whether the photographs should be released under the FOIA. The ACLU expects redacted versions of the photographs to be released within the next six weeks.

[swag]

18. Thanks. Good find. We'll see what the court says.

[DistressedAmerican]

12. We Will Most Likely Not Have Them Released Today.

The ACLU gets them today. Hopefully they will release them tomorrow.

Does not matter exacvlty when they hit the press. We must start working NOW. I am tired of us responding to their lies. I want them debunked IN ADVANCE so that they smell the lies upfront.

Please see my site and related posts for details on the campaign I am currently pushing. DU can really lead the way on this if we are focused and organized.

Here's my site link for more info:
http://www.seedsofdoubt.com/distressedamerican/main.htm



In short, when they come out should not worry us. We need to act and prep for them being here today. If they are not, that just puts us ahead of the curve.

[swag]

13. I appreciate your efforts, but must ask on what basis you say,

"The ACLU gets them today," when the court order says no such thing.

[ScamUSA.Com]

16. timeline info

By LARRY NEUMEISTER
The Associated Press

NEW YORK -- A judge has ordered the government to release four videos from Abu Ghraib prison and dozens of photographs from the same collection as photos that touched off the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal a year ago.

The federal judge issued the order late Wednesday requiring the Army to release the material to the American Civil Liberties Union to comply with the Freedom of Information Act.

The ACLU said the material would show that the abuse was "more than the actions of a few rogue soldiers."
Judge Alvin Hellerstein said the 144 pictures and videos can be turned over in redacted form to protect the victims' identities. ***He gave the Army one month to release them. ****

(edit: the article is no longer on the website, but this was the source link)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/03/AR2005060300477_pf.html

[swag]

21. Two questions:

1. What was the date of the article you posted?
2. Does a news story trump a judicial order?

[ScamUSA.Com]

23. slow your roll

1. June 4
2.

[swag]

25. Thank you, Scam.

[ScamUSA.Com]

32. I archived the entire article if you want it

http://scamusa.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=323

peace

[swag]

36. Thanks. And here's a Boston Globe article (June 4, 2005)

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/04/more_abu_ghraib_images_ordered/
. . .
Hellerstein did not directly order the Pentagon to hand over the photos. The ACLU lawyer involved in the case said the group expects to get the images soon after the deadline. The lawyer, Amrit Singh, said she does not know what the images show.

''All we know is that these are photographs of abuse of detainees held in Abu Ghraib," she said. ''From our perspective, the public has an undeniable right to receive all these documents, which reveal the torture of detainees and underscore the need for an independent investigation."

But Jim Turner, a Defense Department spokesman, said the judge has only ordered the military to conceal the identities of the detainees in the photos, not make them public.

''This is a matter still in litigation," Turner said. ''The court order that we have only instructs us to 'reprocess and redact' the photos. Final dispossession of the images has not been decided at this time."
. . .

[ScamUSA.Com]

37. LOL, why didn't you quote this part

"In his ruling Wednesday, US District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein gave the military until June 30 to prepare the 144 pictures and four videotapes by hiding or obscuring the faces of the detainees. The images were obtained by an Army soldier who helped uncover the abuse scandal."

[swag]

38. That paragraph says just what the order says.

Preparation of the documents, not turnover to ACLU.

Does that paragraph tell you that the order says the photos must be in ACLU hands today? The judge's order doesn't.


Or am I missing some other source of your LOL in there. A humorous twist?

[ScamUSA.Com]

39. fair enough man... the court order doesn't seem to have a date for release

but it seems everyone believes a date was given for release... heres another example:

"Revelation of new photographs, and even videos, of abuse at Abu Ghraib may also return the prison to the media spotlight. The Pentagon has been ordered by a federal court to release a new batch of photographs, and possibly videos, of alleged Abu Ghraib prison wrongdoings to the ACLU by June 30 as part of a Freedom of Information Act request."

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050629/29prison.htm

[swag]

40. A deadline of June 30 was given in the court order for redaction

and processing of the photos.

http://www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=18396

DOD's attorney claimed that disposition of the documents was still under ligitation.

See ya.

[DistressedAmerican]

17. I Thought That We Resolved This On The Other Thread.

The ACLU Says that they get them today. Please refer back to the other post for all of the details.

The wording in the court ordewr says something like redaction period ends today. All reporting on the case has confirmed that the order means that they must have them finished and turned over.

This is the interpretation of the ACLU as well...

HERE IS THE QUOTE FROM THE ACLU:
""Under the order, the Pentagon has until June 30 to redact and release 144 photos, the American Civil Liberties Union said. The Defense Department must also tell the court by June 10 how long it will take to redact four movies, which have not yet been seen publicly. "

[swag]

19. This was not resolved on the other thread. In fact this very thread

shows otherwise. Not only does the judicial order not specify release today, but ACLU does not necessarily expect receipt today:

edited to correct link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3989311&mesg_id=3989693

[DistressedAmerican]

26. Any Particular Reason You Are So Adamant About This?

As I have said before. Either they will or they will not.

It does not have any effect on us. We need to be pushing regardless of when the photos see the light of day. The abuse is ongoing. We should be fighting everyday regardless.

I am still quite convinced but, I won't spend anymore time trying to convince you. I do not see the point in even continuing this discussion.

Just work the issue. Stop obsessing over the dates.

As to this trhread showing otherwise, all it does is show that the OP hadn't read it.

[swag]

27. I dislike false information presented as fact.

It erodes our credibility.

[ScamUSA.Com]

29. you can trust the washington post or not

thats your call

[swag]

31. Good one.

Thanks for the afternoon laugh.

I really don't have it in for you, honestly. I like what you are doing. But the order does not say what you said it says.

on edit: sorry, I mistook you for DA. The Washington Post can say what it wants, but it is untrue to say that the judicial order mandates June 30 as the deadline for DOD to turn over the materials to ACLU.

[DistressedAmerican]

30. And YOUR Facts Are What? I have posted the ruling, and quotes.

How about you?

Frankly, you have become a waste of my time.

Goodbye...

[swag]

33. The ruling does not say what you say it says.

Your link clearly shows this.

[anarch]

14. will they be redacted to the point of uselessness?

I mean, every FOIA-requested document I've ever seen, when it was finally handed over, didn't have much left in it. I just wonder what the "reprocessed and redacted" versions will consist of.

[wtmusic]

20. They are supposed to be redacted only to hide

the identities of the participants.

Supposedly.

[DistressedAmerican]

22. Ther Are Order To Redact Only Faces, Genitals and other identifiers that

could give away the identity of those pictured.

We will see but, I think they will be plenty clear.

[wtmusic]

24. When video of the boy being raped is released

the shit will hit the fan.

Even freepers will call for Rummy's resignation.

[Bouncy Ball]

28. You sure about that?

I think bush could eat toddler fingers on live TV standing on the White House lawn and freepers wouldn't bat an eye at it.

[wtmusic]

34. well

if anything will touch the fundie/pseudopatriot nerve, it's sex crimes against kids.

Because the thought of Junior's culpability might induce convulsions, they'll blame it on a slightly more disposable wretch.

[Bouncy Ball]

41. True, true.

[Warren DeMontague]

45. Really? Except.. They don't seem to be terribly pissed off with--

the Catholic Church.

I would argue that, to this crowd, context is everything.

[Kingshakabobo]

35. Ok, "toddler fingers". I know I shouldn't laugh at this subject

but you crack me up Bouncy.

[Bouncy Ball]

42. Hey just your screen name cracks ME up!

Kingshakabobo, LOL.

No, seriously, standing on the White House lawn, naked except for black dress socks and a pink tutu, eating toddler fingers and singing "How Dry I Am." Clearly ready for the psychiatric ward.

I bet you $5 that a good 10% of the US population would still be ok with that. Yep.

[Warren DeMontague]

44. As long as he wasn't getting a blow job or talkin' smack about Jeebus,

you're probably right.

[spanone]

46. The PhotoMoto was closed for Thursday.

[ScamUSA.Com]

47. more info: army asks for extension

(full article posted, before this one 'disappears' too)


Pentagon prepares to air more Abu Ghraib images
Federal judge asked to extend June 30 deadline to July 22.

By ERIC ROSENBERG
Hearst Newspapers


WASHINGTON – The Pentagon is preparing to release another batch of photos showing prisoner abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, a step that is likely to renew criticism of the U.S.

The digital photos are from the same batch amassed by Army Spc. Joseph Darby, who was based at Abu Ghraib. Darby turned the photos over to military investigators last year. Later, some photos showing naked Iraqi prisoners being forced to simulate sex acts were broadcast and published.

The ensuing controversy triggered wide criticism of U.S. policies at the prison.

To date, eight soldiers have pleaded guilty or been convicted at court-martial in the scandal.

A federal judge in New York on June 2 ordered the government to prepare to release the rest of the Darby photos in response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union under the Freedom of Information Act.

In issuing his order, U.S. District Court Judge Alvin Hellerstein of New York City gave the government until June 30 to get the photos ready by removing information in the pictures that might identify the victims. The judge said the photographs "are the best evidence the public can have of what occurred" at Abu Ghraib.

David Kelley, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, has asked Hellerstein for an extension - until July 22 - to get all the video and still pictures ready for release.

In a June 10 letter to Hellerstein, Kelley said the government would have the photographs ready by June 30. But "in order to address all of the responsive Darby images at one time," he requested that Hellerstein not order the release of any until the video processing is completed July 22.

Kelley said the Army's Criminal Investigation Crime Lab is processing the videos frame-by-frame.

The Bush administration is likely to pay a public-relations penalty for failing to release all of the Abu Ghraib images sooner.

"There would have been short-term discomfort and pain, but then it would have been over with," Nikolas Gvosdev, a senior fellow in strategic studies at the Nixon Center here and an analyst of the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal. "These pictures may all be of the same event, but they might convey the impression that the abuse is ongoing."

In pressing for release of the pictures, the ACLU contends that prisoner abuse was more widespread than the Bush administration has acknowledged.

"We think that (the) public has a right to this information," said Amrit Singh, staff counsel at the ACLU.

As part of its lawsuit, which also seeks documents pertaining to the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the ACLU wants to "create a system of accountability for the abuses that happened in the name of the American people and to hold accountable high- ranking officials," Singh said.

http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/2005/06/19/sections/news/focus_government/article_566139.php

[spanone]

48. So what did the federal judge rule?

[Warren DeMontague]

50. Bush administration "likely to pay a public relations penalty"

yeah, if anybody hears about any of it.

[Warren DeMontague]

49. They're looking for a Photoshop expert who isn't gay. nt

[brettdale]

51. Any word at all on the photos?

Released today??, tomorrow??, next week??, next month??, next year??????

I went o CNN and they still have a picture of that missing white chick. But nothing at all about new photos to be released.

[Warren DeMontague]

52. My best guess is, the "request" for an extension was granted.

Anyone got any ACLU contacts they want to check with? Maybe they'll have an update on their website soon.

I wouldn't hold my breath for, say, CNN to give a shit, at least until there are images on the internet that they absolutely cannot ignore.