Any News Concerning Abu Gharaib Photos being Released

[stepnw1f]

I could have sworn LALA said the Judge would make a decision today....

I could be wrong.

[acmavm]

1. He's buying into the 'argument' that the photos may put our service

men and women in danger. He's mulling it over. In other words, just like I said, THEY AREN'T GONNA BE RELEASED.

[stepnw1f]

4. This Government Really Pisses me Off

The Muslim people already know what's in those photos. What a bullshit excuse. He's protecting this administration, not the troops.

If he really wanted to protect us, he'd do the right thing and release those photos so we can come clean and start new. Fucking conservatives are just blind and stupid.

[acmavm]

7. Oh yeah, the Iraqis already know. They not only saw the torture first

hand, they were the victims. They have scars, physical and emotional that will remind them and their friends and their families until long after the last victim is dead.

Sins of this nature cast very long long shadows. They still remember the crusades. Well, this is just a refresher.

Do I believe that releasing the photos could put Americans in more danger? How the hell can there be more danger than constantly worrying about car bombs, rockets, mortars, plastic explosives, and bullets being thrown at you constantly? Or maybe a suicide bomber sneaking up behind you and taking you out at any time? No, these photos can't make it any more dangerous than it already is.

[ThomWV]

2. I haven't heard a word

But I'm mighty interested in this one. I think it will define the public's right to know what its Government is doing. If we loose this one there is no way back.

[CanOfWhoopAss]

3. This story is buried in Katrina news now

They can stall even longer.

[evermind]

5. Not looking good, from the quotes in this cnn story

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/08/31/abu.ghraib.photos.ap/

The judge questioned whether he could disregard arguments by Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who has warned that releasing the photos would aid al Qaeda recruitment, weaken the Afghan and Iraqi governments and incite riots against U.S. troops.

"How can I ignore the expert opinion of Gen. Myers, who is concerned with the safety of his troops?" the judge asked. "I can't substitute my opinion for the opinion of Gen. Myers."

He said troops in Iraq "face danger every day and don't deserve to have that danger enlarged."

<huge snip>

The judge did not say when he would rule, but he has indicated that a speedy decision is important so the public's right to know is not compromised.

[Qibing Zero]

6. It's a sad day when...

..the things 'leaders' say is held in higher regard than law.

[evermind]

8. Yeah, I was kind of wondering whether this is entirely a

matter of the judge's discretion, or whether there is a point of law to be decided. The arguments being presented don't look like specifically legal ones to me (on both sides) so I'd guess the judge is making some sort of decision based on interpreting what constitutes a national security exemption, in which case the ACLU is at a disadvantage because those on the other side, as the judge hints in the CNN story I posted, are the de facto experts (supposedly) on this.

This is only an uninformed guess, though