NY Times issues correction re: Abu Ghraib photos release

[wicket]

This paragraph was added today to the NY Times article on the Bush administration's refusal to comply with a court order to turn over the remaing abuse photos and videos:

Correction: July 26, 2005, Tuesday:

An article on Saturday about a federal judge's order regarding photographs and videotapes related to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal misstated a deadline and the response by Defense Department lawyers. The government was given until Friday to black out some identifying details in the material, not to release it. Defense Department lawyers met that deadline, but asked the court to block the public release of the materials. They did not refuse to cooperate with an order for the materials' release.

[goclark]

1. Does this mean that we may see anything soon?

[tuvor]

2. Conveniently, they note no deadline for release.

Why do I smell bullshit?

[wicket]

4. I was thinking the same thing...

Something stinks...

[iconoclastic cat]

3. Wow, history is made...er, *revised* before our eyes! n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. Exactly what I was thinking

[dogday]

6. As usual we will take the blame for

this instead of passing it on to the Administration. After all we can't have them look bad, so we will take the blame....

[DistressedAmerican]

7. Thanks For The Update. Kick and Nod!

[wicket]

10. And thanks for your tireless efforts!

:thumbsup:

[aden_nak]

8. So let me see if I've got this straight. . .

We set a deadline for the material to be censored, but despite said censoring the material still will not be released? So they blocked out details, but we still aren't allowed to see it? I can't even fathom how bad this stuff is. . . even though I'm afraid I already know.

[wicket]

9. It's gotta be REALLY bad

:scared:

[DeepModem Mom]

11. kick

[wicket]

12. kick

:kick:

[DistressedAmerican]

13. And Another!

[G_j]

14. OK ,how can this be checked out?

"The government was given until Friday to black out some identifying details in the material, not to release it"

[wicket]

15. the whole thing is odd

They give no source for their correction so it's damn near impossible to check out. Grrr...

[wicket]

16. kick

:kick:

[Generator]

17. Damn-here's the court order

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=18395&c=206#FileAttach

It doesn't say release that I can see, is that assumed? I don't know.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. So what the hell does that mean???

It's worth looking at the timeline to see how long they've been hemming and hawing on this deal. The judge criticized the government's "Glacial pace" back in October of LAST YEAR:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4192858

And it would seem to me that the time to raise this 7(F) objection would have been March, when they raised all the OTHER objections- the 7(C) objection, the 6 objection, and the infamous "releasing the pictures would violate the geneva convention rights of the victims" objection.

And the $50,000 question is, of course, when ARE they supposed to release them?

[Warren DeMontague]

19. I'm re-reading the ACLU press release from July 22

"Today was the day the government was supposed to process and redact photographs and videos relating to the abuse and torture of prisoners held abroad. Raising new arguments on the eve of its deadline, the United States government refused to release the materials to the public. The photographs and videos were to be processed for eventual release as a result of a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and other organizations."

Hmmm. Eventual release. Okay, I guess we'll stay tuned, although one wonders what the point of processing the images is if the intent isn't to have them released.

[cyberpj]

25. June 02, 2005 ACLU release says:

the redacted photos were expected to be turned over within 6 weeks of 06/02.

Federal Court Orders Government to Turn Over Videos and Photos Showing Detainee Abuse
June 2, 2005

(snip)
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.

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=18393&c=206

[wicket]

20. kick

:kick:

[NJmaverick]

21. Yeah the photos will be right next to the ones of flying pigs

[Theres-a]

22. Bullshit.

[Tesla]

24. This is Bullsh*t!!!

How in the Hell did we lose our rights so easily?
We are NOT ALLOWED??
What happened to "We the People"?

[hiley]

23. absolute

crap

[katinmn]

26. WH to NYT: If we go down, we're taking you with us.

The NYT has been shilling for Bush for years. Nothing new here.

The reason for Judy Miller's imprisonment is going to destroy what little credibility remains at the NYT.

Just wait and see.:popcorn:

[cyberpj]

27. Yes - they WERE ordered to TURN OVER VIDEOS AND PHOTOS

WORD GAMES!
The judge said TURN THEM OVER TO ACLU - then gave them time to do the "redacting" but the redacting deadline is the implied TURN OVER deadline!

It's their version of "what is 'is'"

Federal Court Orders Government to Turn Over Videos and Photos Showing Detainee Abuse

June 2, 2005

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: [e-mail]

NEW YORK -- A federal judge has ordered the Defense Department to turn over dozens of photographs and four movies depicting detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq as part of an ongoing lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=18393&c=206

[annabanana]

28. Damn if this isn't the dodgiest dodge I've ever seen..

What is the court doing about this load of crap?

[wicket]

30. They think they are above the law

:grr:

[cyberpj]

29. Here's the court order (pdf) - it does look like a lot of "redacting"

but no turning over!

I also see it says "part 1" but don't see any part 2 posted.

any good sleuths here?

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

[wicket]

31. thanks!

:kick: