New abuse photos- Was ACLU "had"- NYTimes prints correction today

[cyberpj]

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.

So - the judge said fix them but nothing about releasing them?!

Here's the court order (pdf) -
It does look like a lot of "redacting" but no turning over! Also, that the DOD showed them to the judge "in camera". Note the mention of photos that show so much you can't even blur them! Also - a mention of photo not from Darby.

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

[cyberpj]

1. Here's the June 06 ACLU release - was ACLU "had" ?

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.

So did the judge put one over on ACLU?

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

[acmejack]

2. It is hard to believe they could.

A lot of lawyers there. Here's what they say, I did not find a retraction of

[jojo54]

3. Delay, delay, delay....

..so their best photoshop people can do their work on the photos before their release.

[cyberpj]

8. The frame by frame editing of videos takes time I guess. Anyone else

wonder if they got Disney workers involved!?

[The Night Owl]

9. According to the NY Times, the work of editing the images is complete.

According to the NY Times, the work of editing the images is complete, so if the release of the photos has been delayed, that delay is unrelated to the editing.

[cyberpj]

10. The delay is due to the DOD last minute request to file "secret brief"

Defense Department Refuses to Turn Over Abuse Photographs; Asks to File Secret Brief Justifying Refusal

(snip)
In a letter filed at the eleventh hour, the Department of Defense claims that photographs and videos of abuse that the court had previously ordered redacted for future release "could result in harm to individuals" for reasons that will be set forth in a memorandum and three declarations that the government will file under seal with the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York.

(BUT NOTICE THEY DON'T SAY WHEN)

Under the government’s proposal, the documents explaining the government’s reasons for withholding the images of abuse will not be available to the public except in redacted form, and the photographs and videos may never be made public.

The ACLU has expressed skepticism at what appears to be yet another attempt by the government to deny the public critical information about the abuse and torture of prisoners.

full article:
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=18811&c=206

[cyberpj]

12. I'm waiting for the big OOPS! - They were irretrievably damaged by some

accident during redaction!

[cyberpj]

4. Eventual release --- I don't remember seeing that there before.

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 -

[The Night Owl]

5. I now firmly believe that the torture photos will not be released...

I now firmly believe that the torture photos and videos will not be released... at least not through legal means. Someone with a conscience is going to have to leak the photos and videos.

I suspect that the ACLU was correct when it said that the torture images show wrongdoing that was both grievous and widespread. The Bush administration can't come back from that and it knows it. That is why the photos are still under wraps.

[cyberpj]

7. Hard to understand why the judge would issue redaction dates but not

release dates.

I agree. It's not looking like freedom of information rulings mean much when it comes to this ultra damaging material.

[LifeDuringWartime]

6. they need to be unedited

or have prisoner faces blurred out by a third party. the military doesn't seem to be trustworthy on this.

[The Night Owl]

11. The real question is...

Is the government seeking merely to delay the release of torture images for a more politically convenient moment or is it beginning an effort to defy the court's order to release the torture images?