What is the latest on the Abu Ghraib photos? Have the courts responded

[Dover]

to the White House's bid to prevent their release?

[wli]

1. no word since the last refusal

[swag]

2. So few search engine queries, so many threads.

[Skip Intro]

3. what a nice, polite reply

n/t

[swag]

6. Thanks for the compliment.

How many threads does one have to see asking the same question almost hourly?

For informative searches,

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=abu+ghraib&btnG=Search+News

is a start.

In other words, go to http://news.google.com and search on the terms "Abu Ghraib." Read until you find your answer. Sort by date to find the latest.

Or if one has a donor star, one could even search DU for the terms "Abu Ghraib" until one found an answer. But of course, one would have to wade through 300 threads titled, "So what ever happened to the new Abu Ghraib Photos?"

Best to you, and thanks again for your kind words.

[Skip Intro]

10. you're welcome

some people don't get to hang out here as much as we would like. I've got about thirty minutes (if I'm get to bed in time to get six hours sleep) left online tonight. I haven't been online since last night. This was the first thread I came upon to ask the question, a question that had been on my mind as well. I clicked to read the replies - to educate myself, which I do a lot of here - and see only a terse reply boiling down to, "keep up, dammit." Struck me as a mite rude, imagining myself having asked the question and having received such a reply.

Just a reaction, nothing personal.

Thanks for the links.

[Dover]

18. Thank you sir. You're a gentleman. I'm actually a pretty avid googler

and poster of articles on DU. I hadn't seen anything in LBN on this story and it's been on my mind as well. Just can't google EVERYTHING, which is why I occassionally lean on the good folks of DU to share their research...which is always remarkably thorough. Everyone gives what they can and want to. No one's arm is twisted.

Steve's response was so helpful, and apparently this story just broke today and hadn't made it to LBN yet. So it worked out for everyone's benefit.

thanks again for your kindness.

[Melodybe]

19. You'll be happy to know that Jon Stewart exposed the whole affair on TDS

tonight, in a segment titled the less you know.

Thanks to Jon a few million more people know about this.

[steve2470]

4. Reporters Committee urges court to order Abu Ghraib photo release

http://www.rcfp.org/news/releases/20050804-reportersc.html

PRESS RELEASE: The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -- Contact: Lucy Dalglish, [phone]
To remove your address from this list, reply with "remove" in the subject line.

Reporters Committee urges court to order Abu Ghraib photo release

Aug. 4, 2005

A coalition of 14 media organizations and public interest groups organized by The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press have filed a friend-of-the-court brief in U.S. District Court in New York urging the release of Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse photos.

The coalition, which includes CBS Broadcasting Inc., NBC Universal Inc., and The New York Times Co. , supports a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit the American Civil Liberties Union has had pending the Defense Department since October 2003.

The government argues that the information is protected by Exemption 7(F) of the FOI Act, which protects law enforcement records from disclosure when they "could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual." Citing recent riots in Afghanistan following Newsweek's publication of an article about alleged Koran abuse at Guantanamo Bay, later retracted, the government says the official release of Abu Ghraib prison abuse photos could similarly incite violence against military personnel and civilians overseas.

"The government has taken the position in this case that the more outrageously the behavior exhibited by American troops, the less the public has a right to know about it," said Reporters Committee Executive Director Lucy Dalglish. "Such a stance turns the Freedom of Information Act inside out."

Exemption 7(F) has never been applied to hide incendiary evidence of government misconduct. Adopting such an interpretation would have dire consequences, the coalition brief argues, by rewarding misconduct with secrecy and "obscuring government accountability at a time when it is most necessary for the public to have full access to the facts." As a result, the American people would suffer a substantial erosion of meaningful news media coverage about wartime misconduct.

The photos at issue, known as the "Joseph Darby records" after the military policeman who first turned them over to the Army in early 2004, graphically depict detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib prison. A handful of them were leaked to reporter Seymour Hersh and published in the May 10, 2004, edition of The New Yorker magazine. Some also were broadcast by CBS News.

The story and photos made front-page news around the world, sparking international and domestic debate about wartime detainee treatment, interrogation techniques and military accountability.

Hellerstein had earlier ordered the government to prepare the Darby photos for release by redacting any detainees' identifying features, but last month just hours before the July 23 deadline, the government filed its Exemption 7(F) claim instead of releasing the photos.

Exemption 7(F) has been invoked most often to hide the names of law enforcement agents, witnesses, and informants from criminal defendants and convicts that might hurt them. The government's novel interpretation should be rejected, the coalition writes, because the public's ability "to obtain facts about the government's misconduct through the news media and to hold the government accountable through democratic institutions" depends on it.

Although it is relatively rare for friend-of-the-court briefs to be filed at the trial court level, the novelty of the government's argument and its consequences for Americans' access rights prompted the coalition's formation and opposition.

The media and public interest coalition is represented pro bono by lawyer David Smallman of DLA Piper Rudnick LLP.

The 14 news organizations and companies are The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Advance Publications Inc., American Society of Newspaper Editors, CBS Broadcasting, Inc., the E.W. Scripps Company, the Hearst Corporation, Investigative Reporters and Editors, Inc., NBC Universal Inc., the Newspaper Association of America, the New York Times Company, the Radio-Television News Directors Association, the Society of Professional Journalists, the Newspaper Guild-CWA, and the Tribune Company.

The friend-of-the-court brief filed Aug. 3 can be found at: www.rcfp.org/news/documents/20050804-amicusbrie.html

[Dover]

7. Wow! Thanks so much!! That's encouraging news...did you post it in LBN?

n/t

[steve2470]

8. no....I'll do that now nt

[steve2470]

5. Feds File Secret Brief in Abu Ghraib FOIA Suit

http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=2172

by Brendan Coyne (bio)



Aug 2 - Asserting that "privacy interests" and the safety of US troops trump the "public interest," government lawyers seeking a way out of releasing photographs and video reportedly documenting rampant abuse of detainees at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison facility in Iraq have filed partially sealed briefs with the court hearing the case. The American Civil Liberties Union denounced the action as more stalling in a legal battle over the release of the documentation of what many are calling torture.

ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero accused the administration of making "a mockery of the Freedom of Information Act" by keeping the photographs and videos from public scrutiny; and of reaching a "new low" in not making its reasoning public.

The District Court filing approved for public view is heavily-redacted, with whole pages and key details missing. In the papers, lawyers for the Bush administration argue that "the substantial privacy interests implicated by these images substantially outweigh the public interest in their release."

In addition, the papers tie past "disclosure of images depicting alleged abuse of detainees to insurgent attacks" in Iraq and Afghanistan. The papers also cite an April Newsweek report on Qur’ran desecration at the Guantánamo Bay prison camp that has been largely linked to riots in Afghanistan as further reason for keeping the photos and videos out of public hands.

<snip>

[Carolab]

17. Man, I'm glad I give to the ACLU.

My money was never better spent.

[shraby]

9. I read the judge was going to make a decision

on August 15.

[Imagevision]

15. Judge rules in Favor of Bush to suppress

Government claimed they needed time to block out the faces of those involved to protect them? The american people wouldn't want to notice a 2 or 3 star general floating around or perhaps participating.

It's been reported that US. interrogators sodomized a young kid in front of his mother, it must have been bad, Bush pulled it off, at least for now.

[steve2470]

11. Defense Department Files Secret Arguments in Further Attempt to Suppress

Abu Ghraib Photos

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=18842&c=280


July 29, 2005



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: [e-mail]

NEW YORK -- The Defense Department has filed heavily redacted papers in a further attempt to suppress photographs and videos that depict the abuse of prisoners held at Abu Ghraib, the American Civil Liberties Union said today. The move is the government's latest effort to block the release of materials requested by the ACLU under the Freedom of Information Act.

"The government's recent actions make a mockery of the Freedom of Information Act," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director. "The Defense Department has long dragged its heels on coming clean about the systematic and widespread abuse of detainees, but denying the public the right to even hear its legal arguments for withholding information is a new low."

Last week, on the deadline of a court order requiring the Defense Department to process and redact 87 photographs and four videos taken at Abu Ghraib, government attorneys filed a last-minute memorandum of law and three affidavits arguing against the release of the materials. The government's papers cite a statutory provision that permits the withholding of records "compiled for law enforcement purposes," that "could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual."

However, the government has redacted significant portions of its public brief, including the conclusion. The government also heavily redacted portions of declarations submitted in support of the brief. One of the declarations is that of General Richard Meyers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. ACLU attorneys have been provided with less-redacted court papers pursuant to a protective order that prevents them from disclosing the papers' contents to the public.

"Not only is the government denying the public access to records of critical significance, it is also withholding its reasons for doing so," said Amrit Singh, an ACLU staff attorney. "This exemplifies the government's disregard for democratic constraints on the use of executive power."

A hearing has been scheduled in federal court in New York for August 15 to address two issues: whether the public has been improperly denied access to information as a result of the government's redacted briefs, and whether the government should be compelled to release photographs of abuse at Abu Ghraib.

The photographs and videos in question were redacted by the Defense Department in response to a June 1, 2005 court order relating to a lawsuit filed under the Freedom of Information Act filed by the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans for Peace. The New York Civil Liberties Union is co-counsel in the case.

To date, more than 60,000 pages of government documents have been released in response to the ACLU's Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The ACLU has been posting these documents online at www.aclu.org/torturefoia.

The FOIA lawsuit is being handled by Lawrence Lustberg and Megan Lewis of the New Jersey-based law firm Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, P.C. Other attorneys in the case are Singh, Jameel Jaffer, and Judy Rabinovitz of the ACLU; Arthur N. Eisenberg and Beth Haroules of the NYCLU; and Barbara Olshansky of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

The redacted public version of the government's memorandum of law is available online at: http://www.aclu.org/International/International.cfm?ID=18835&c=36.

The redacted public version of General Richard Meyers' affidavit is available online at: http://www.aclu.org/International/International.cfm?ID=18837&c=36.

The redacted public version of Ronald Schlicher's affidavit is available online at: http://www.aclu.org/International/International.cfm?ID=18839&c=36.

The redacted public version of Phillip McGuire's affidavit is available online at: http://www.aclu.org/International/International.cfm?ID=18841&c=36.

[Dover]

12. You are quite the sleuth! This is great info. Thanks again!

And I hope you'll also put all this in LBN too.

[steve2470]

13. the last document is really too old for LBN, sorry nt

[Dover]

16. True, but you can add it to the thread below the other current story.

Yes?

[steve2470]

20. good idea, your wish is my command :-) nt

[seabeyond]

14. steve....... that was nice. Thank You

some of us are terrific at google and wading thru (i can never find what i am looking for). it was nice of you to get the information for dover. i appreciate it too.

[steve2470]

21. you are very welcome, glad I could help nt