U.S. defies order to give up Abu Ghraib abuse photos

[mopaul]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/23/MNGC6DSK7Q1.DTL

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 Friday.

The photographs were some of thousands turned over by Spc. Joseph 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 dogs.

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

[laura888]

1. I demand to see the photos!

Anything done in my name and with my tax dollars should be revealed.

[rodeodance]

2. previously, the gov. argued that release would violate Geneva Conven-

tion, now they are keeping their reasons secret. So, I think the judge will have to respond in secret?? If so, we will not know why -this time-they want the pics withheld. We can specualte-but we will not know the legal reasoning involved.



......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 ACLU says there are 87 photographs and four 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, 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 U.S. 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. ......

[O.M.B.inOhio]

8. oh, so now the Geneva Conventions apply!

Not to torture. We opt out of culpability there. But when it comes to releasing the photos, the Administration wants to protect the prisoners. How kind and consistent.

[Swamp Rat]

3. What? No more Rule of Law in America??? SWEEEET!!!

As the New Emperor of the Swamp, I demand all republicans strip down naked and immediately have group sex with each other. That, perhaps, is their only cure, other than a lobotomy.

What a bunch of sick fucks those Bushler bastards! Now, since they are fragrantly breaking the law to prevent us from seeing their crimes, we can assume they are guilty of the absolute WORST crimes against humanity!

[indepat]

4. This would seemingly be contempt of court in a land where the rule of law

prevailed.

[acmejack]

5. Rule of law is the flaw in your argument!

The rule of law has no meaning to the cabal. They once again flip the bird to the Judiciary and by extension, the American people. I am reaching the saturation point and becoming numb.

Am I surprised that this group has no respect for the law of the land, the law of the world, indeed, the law of humanity? Sadly, I am not.

[indepat]

9. Neither do I, but wjat is sad is the American people, in numbers too large

to fathom, effectively ratify all this by not stopping it in its tracks.

[iconoclastic cat]

6. How the hell can they do that? Isn't that illegal?

Can we all just go ahead and say, "You know, I don't feel like the law applies to me. Screw you!"

I'll try that the next time I'm pulled over on a freeway.

[zanne]

11. I know what you mean. What's the law here?

The White House hasn't come out to spin this yet, so we don't even get to know what the law is in this case?

[postulater]

7. Why doesn't Darby just release them himself?

He surely has a spare disc laying around.

[unhappycamper]

10. The outrage continues.

The White House is run by criminals.
Both houses of Congress are run by criminals.
The last remaining bastion of "the rule of law," the Judicial Branch, is now null and void.
The military is run by criminals.
Every branch of government is run by criminals.

We are sooooo fucked.

[SillyGoose]

12. These photos/videos must be pretty bad

if they are trying to block their release.

from the article - The judge said they would be the "best evidence" in the debate about the treatment of Abu Ghraib prisoners.

[DemoTex]

13. How can the US Senate seriously consider a Bu$h SCOTUS nominee now?

Yesterday, 7/22/05, Bu$h and his cabal proved - absolutely and unequivocally - that they are a pack of lying, felonious contemnors. The Senate should table the Roberts confirmation and request that the US House of Representatives begin impeachment proceedings against Bu$h and Cheney. Those photos and videos should be subpoenaed immediately by the US Congress, if for no other reason to elicit a contempt of Congress response from the Bu$h regime. The Bu$h Bastards are now, officially, out of control. The Constitution, the country, and their precious "rule of law" mean nothing whatever to this pack of arrogant Nazis (and no fucking apology whatsoever for calling them Nazis).

[wli]

14. it's pretty safe to call them Nazis

Lots of their families had direct dealings with Nazis in the 30's, and many of them were even involved when Klaus Barbie was brought on.

[Stirk]

15. Any lawyers around here? Is this legal?

Also- has this story been getting any coverage on television news?