Judge: Public Has Right to See Abuse Photos

[BigBadBrian]

Judge: Public Has Right to See Abuse Photos



NEW YORK (AP) - A federal judge has told the government it will have to release additional pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, civil rights lawyers said.

Judge Alvin Hellerstein, finding the public has a right to see the pictures, told the government Thursday he will sign an order requiring it to release them to the American Civil Liberties Union, the lawyers said.

The judge made the decision after he and government attorneys privately viewed a sampling of nine pictures resulting from an Army probe into abuse and torture at the prison. The pictures were given to the Army by a military policeman assigned there.

ACLU lawyer Megan Lewis told the judge she believes the government has pictures of abuse beyond the Abu Ghraib images that sparked outrage around the world after they were leaked to the media last year.


Some of the thousands of pages of documents the government has released to the ACLU seem to refer to such images, and the government has not denied that additional photos exist, she said.


The judge decided some pictures from Abu Graib could be released to comply with the Freedom of Information Act while others must be redacted or were not relevant to the ACLU's request, Lewis said.


She said the judge's findings likely would clear the way for the release of other pictures of detainees taken around the world by U.S. authorities.


``I do think they could be extremely upsetting and depict conduct that would outrage the American public and be truly horrifying,'' she said outside court.


The judge ordered the transcript of comments made during his viewing of the pictures sealed. He did not disclose his findings in court, but said his order ``will lead to production (of the pictures) or further proceedings.''


``Further proceedings'' presumably referred to possible appeals by government lawyers, who declined to comment as they left the hearing. A message left with a government spokeswoman was not immediately returned.


Before viewing the pictures, the judge said in court that he thought ``photographs present a different level of detail and are the best evidence the public can have of what occurred.''


Government lawyer Sean Lane argued that releasing pictures, even if faces and other features are obscured, would violate Geneva Convention rules on prisoner treatment by subjecting detainees to additional humiliation or embarrassment. He said the emotional wounds would be reopened because detainees could identify themselves and because the public would learn their identities.


The judge, however, said, ``I don't believe with suitable redaction there is an unwarranted invasion of privacy.'' He also said he didn't think it was likely that detainees in redacted photos would be able to be identified.


The judge's decision stems from a lawsuit the ACLU filed in October 2003 seeking information on treatment of detainees in U.S. custody and the transfer of prisoners to countries known to use torture. The ACLU contends that prisoner abuse is systemic.


So far, 36,000 pages of documents and the reports of 130 investigations, mostly from the FBI and Army, have been turned over to the ACLU. The group is seeking documents from the CIA and the Defense Department as well.





© Copyright The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained In this news report may not be published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.


Link (http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2005052619570001108123&dt=20050526195700&w=APO&coview=)

[BigBadBrian]

Bullshit!!!!

Some damn things just shouldn't be made public in the interest of national security. We know there was a problem at that damned prison. Why fuckin' inflame the fuckin' Islamic hordes even more with even more photos? People without a military background just can never grasp a military way of life or the way the military operates, or the fuckin countless ways military people put their ass on the line.

This fuckin' judge is an idiot.

Someone needs to "Ollie North" these fuckin' photos.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[FORD]

Don't you get it yet?

The BCE is deliberately stirring up shit, because they need an excuse to launch the invasion of Iran, which they have scheduled for June.

Now that being said, the American people have every right to know what's being done in their name, which is the BCE's reason for censorship. These pictures have already circulated well enough inside Iraq. Where do you think a lot of the "insurgents" got their motivation from?

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by FORD
Don't you get it yet?

The BCE is deliberately stirring up shit, because they need an excuse to launch the invasion of Iran, which they have scheduled for June.



Gee, that's within the next month. :rolleyes:

We'll see, won't we?


Realistically speaking, from a military point of view, the US ARMY doesn't have the assets in place in the Middle East to conduct such operations during this time frame.

Of course, maybe there's a reason a large portion of our troops in Iraq are reservists.

:gulp:

[FORD]

But who said the ground troops had to go in first?

[academic punk]

BBB -

Bottom line, this country was created on the premise of a transparent government. Whether or not that exists (or if the ideal CAN or should) is another question.

One minute you're complaining about judges ruling from the bench, now you're complaining that this judge is upholding the law without "reading" the laws to fit his interpretation...which one is it???

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by academic punk
BBB -

Bottom line, this country was created on the premise of a transparent government. Whether or not that exists (or if the ideal CAN or should) is another question.

One minute you're complaining about judges ruling from the bench, now you're complaining that this judge is upholding the law without "reading" the laws to fit his interpretation...which one is it???

Neither.

Transparency and Freedom of Speech issues often don't apply to military situations when it comes to national securitiy or the safety of our troops when they are risking themselves.

Publishing further photos like the pinko-liberal ACLU has requested will only do nothing but fan the flames of contempt for America(ns) that does not need to be done.

[FORD]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Neither.

Transparency and Freedom of Speech issues often don't apply to military situations when it comes to national securitiy or the safety of our troops when they are risking themselves.

Publishing further photos like the pinko-liberal ACLU has requested will only do nothing but fan the flames of contempt for America(ns) that does not need to be done.

Maybe they should have thought about that before they "fanned the flames of contempt" by torturing people and flushing their holy books down the shitter?

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by FORD
Maybe they should have thought about that before they "fanned the flames of contempt" by torturing people and flushing their holy books down the shitter?

I think it's been proven that this issue is seriously is in question.

:gulp:

[scorpioboy33]

Big Brian....you're always honest. You really believe in American right or wrong don't you? If you found out that the iraq war was planned before 911 and that it had nothing to do with WMD you would still support it right? Just a couple other questions cause it's not often I see such an fan of the Republican party. What were your thoughts on McCarthyism? Do you also support the Vietnam war. What about the slaughter at Kent state. Were they just pinko commies hippy scum asking for it?
thanks pal

[scorpioboy33]

oh and I also bet you have no problem with what happened at Abu Ghraib

[FORD]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
I think it's been proven that this issue is seriously is in question.

:gulp:

Which issue? The torture at Abu Ghraib is documented by the very pictures you want censored. And the Quran flushing was reported several times, in numerous publications, before the BCE yelled at Newsweek for doing so.

It used to be an accepted premise that if three independent sources verified a story, it was more than likely true. But now, people like yourself would discount ten, twenty, maybe even 100 different sources, if the BCE denied the story.

And you wonder what "fans the flames of contempt for America" ??

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
I think it's been proven that this issue is seriously is in question.

:gulp:

Typical response.

"PROVEN" that it's "SERIOUSLY IN QUESTION"

How can you type that with a straight face?:rolleyes:

FORD's right. You want it both ways, and to fall back on the lame "National Security" argument

You're a fucking riot

[BigBadBrian]

Just a reminder from another thread:

By Evan Thomas and Michael Isikoff
Newsweek

May 30 issue - What really happened at Guantanamo? Last week, amid the heat of the controversy over NEWSWEEK's retracted story, new details about the issue of alleged mistreatment of the Qur'an emerged.

The International Committee of the Red Cross announced that it had provided the Pentagon with confidential reports about U.S. personnel disrespecting or mishandling Qur'ans at Gitmo in 2002 and 2003. Simon Schorno, an ICRC spokesman, said the Red Cross had provided "several" instances that it believed were "credible." The ICRC report included three specific allegations of offensive treatment of the Qur'an by guards. Defense Department spokesman Lawrence Di Rita would not comment on these allegations except to say that the Gitmo commanders routinely followed up ICRC reports, including these, and could not substantiate them. He then gave what is from the Defense Department point of view more context and important new information.

It is clear that in 2002, military investigators became frustrated by the unresponsiveness of some high-profile terror suspects, including one who had close contact with the 9/11 hijackers. At the time, fears of another attack from Al Qaeda were running high, and the Pentagon was determined to make the terror suspects talk. The interrogators asked for, and received, Pentagon permission to use tactics like isolation and sleep deprivation. Less clear, however, is what happened to more run-of-the-mill detainees among the 800 or so housed at Guantanamo at the time.

According to Di Rita, when the first prisons were built for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo in early 2002, prison guards were instructed to respect the detainees' religious rituals. The prisoners were given Qur'ans, which they hung from the walls of their cells in cotton surgical masks provided by the prison. Log entries by the guards indicate that in about a dozen cases, the detainees themselves somehow damaged their Qur'ans. In one case a prisoner allegedly ripped up a Qur'an; in another a prisoner tore the cover off his Qur'an. In three cases, detainees tried to stuff pages from their Qur'ans down their toilets, according to the Defense Department's account of what is in the guards' reports. (NEWSWEEK was not permitted to see the log items.) The log entries do not indicate why the detainees might have done this, said Di Rita, and prison commanders concluded that certain hard-core prisoners would try to agitate the other detainees by alleging disrespect for Muslim articles of faith.

In light of the controversy, one of these incidents bears special notice. Last week, NEWSWEEK interviewed Command Sgt. John VanNatta, who served as the prison's warden from October 2002 to the fall of 2003. VanNatta recounted that in 2002, the inmates suddenly started yelling that the guards had thrown a Qur'an on or near an Asian-style squat toilet. The guards found an inmate who admitted that he had dropped his Qur'an near his toilet. According to VanNatta, the inmate then was taken cell to cell to explain this to other detainees to quell the unrest. But the incident could partly account for the multiple allegations among detainees, including one by a released British detainee in a lawsuit that claims that guards flushed Qur'ans down toilets.

In fewer than a dozen log entries from the 31,000 documents reviewed so far, said Di Rita, there is a mention of detainees' complaining that guards or interrogators mishandled their Qur'ans. In one case, a female guard allegedly knocked a Qur'an from its pouch onto the detainee's bed. In another alleged case, said Di Rita, detainees became upset after two MPs, looking for contraband, felt the pouch containing a prisoner's Qur'an. While questioning a detainee, an interrogator allegedly put a Qur'an on top of a TV set, took it off when the detainee complained, then put it back on. In another alleged instance, guards somehow sprayed water on a detainee's Qur'an. This handful of alleged cases came out of thousands of daily interactions between guards and prisoners, said Di Rita. None has been substantiated yet, he said.

In December 2002, a guard inadvertently knocked a Qur'an from its pouch onto the floor of a detainee's cell, Di Rita said. A number of detainees protested. That January, partly in response to the incident and partly to provide precise guidelines for new guards and interrogators, the Guantanamo commanders issued precise rules to respect the "cultural dignity of the Koran thereby reducing the friction over the searching of the Korans." Only chaplains or Muslim interpreters were allowed to inspect detainees' Qur'ans. "Two hands will be used at all times when handling Korans in a manner signaling respect and reverence," the rules state. "Ensure that the Koran is not placed in offensive areas such as the floor, near the toilet or sink, near the feet, or dirty/wet areas..."

Di Rita said that the Pentagon may look further into the reports found in the logs. The Pentagon is not ruling out the possibility of finding credible reports of Qur'an desecration. But so far, said Di Rita, it has not found any.

With Michael Hirsh in Washington
© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Typical response.

"PROVEN" that it's "SERIOUSLY IN QUESTION"

How can you type that with a straight face?:rolleyes:

FORD's right. You want it both ways, and to fall back on the lame "National Security" argument

You're a fucking riot

Gitmo, dummy.

Go clean your boot-licking tongue, you FORD licking lackey.

:gulp:

[FORD]

As I said, several different publications printed the Quran flushing story before Newsweek.

What you're seeing now is the BCE attempt at "damage control", because the Muslim world is understandably and justifiably pissed off at these abuses. Newsweek might bend over and grab their ankles for the BCE, but that doesn't mean the other publications will do the same.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian



Publishing further photos like the pinko-liberal ACLU has requested will only do nothing but fan the flames of contempt for America(ns) that does not need to be done.



You are your own worst enemy :rolleyes:


Your OWN administration "fans the flames of contempt" for us and our country, you ass sucking Con:cool:

The fact you still can attempt to defend them would be laughable, if it weren't for the loss of life.

pinko-liberal? Are you for real? Or is this just a goof:rolleyes:

[academic punk]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
pinko-liberal ACLU


I never thought I'd see the day...but whaddya know?

Kip Winger is having an argument with none other than Archie Bunker himself.

Far out.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Gitmo, dummy.

Go clean your boot-licking tongue, you FORD licking lackey.

:gulp:

oh, poor thing:cool:

hit a nerve, or just that time of the month again:rolleyes:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by academic punk
I never thought I'd see the day...but whaddya know?

Kip Winger is having an argument with none other than Archie Bunker himself.

Far out.

I never thought I'd read pinko-liberal again, that's for sure:rolleyes:

What's next? Feminazis?

American
Civil
Liberties
Union

fucking pinkos. Big Bad Brie will tell you AND your judges what Civil Liberties you may have.:rolleyes:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by scorpioboy33
Big Brian....you're always honest. You really believe in American right or wrong don't you? If you found out that the iraq war was planned before 911 and that it had nothing to do with WMD you would still support it right? Just a couple other questions cause it's not often I see such an fan of the Republican party. What were your thoughts on McCarthyism? Do you also support the Vietnam war. What about the slaughter at Kent state. Were they just pinko commies hippy scum asking for it?
thanks pal

:D

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by academic punk
I never thought I'd see the day...but whaddya know?

Kip Winger is having an argument with none other than Archie Bunker himself.

Far out.


I thought you'd like that one.

And look...Kip managed to post three times in a row amidst all those autograph seekers. :rolleyes: