Judge orders release of more Abu Ghraib photos
Reuters reports that Manhattan Federal Judge Alvin Hellerstein ordered the government to release even more photos of what a few soldiers did in Abu Ghraib more than ten years ago because the American Civil Liberties Union says that it will “help the public better understand the implications of some of the Bush administration’s policies.” Whatever that means;
Hellerstein ruled last August that the government had failed to show why releasing the photographs would endanger American soldiers and workers abroad, but gave the government a chance to submit more evidence. In Friday’s order, however, he said additional evidence had failed to change his decision.
The photographs would be released in redacted form to conceal the identities of any individuals, according to court documents.
So, basically, the judge has decided that he’d give ISIS more recruiting tools, make more US troops targets because a small group of part-time soldiers wanted to entertain themselves and film it for the world to see. There was nothing from the Defense Department or the White House that encouraged this behavior. In fact, some the guilty parties had already been charged by the time the media got word of the antics of a few out-of-control Reservists.
But that’s cool, now those guys still deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq can pay for the mistakes of Lynndie England and Charles Graner.
Category: Dumbass Bullshit
I thought all that stuff was released.
When are these spiteful twits going to grow some common sense? (Rhetorical. No answer required.)
Not all the stuff was released. I was working public affairs when the head of Army PAO came into my buddy’s Pentagon office and asked him to pixillate certain… uh… body parts and close ups on a certain pr0n movie a certain two morons made over there. The portion of the photos released was actually relatively small. I do have the rest somewhere on a CD-ROM, believe it or not. Or maybe I tossed the damn thing by now. Can’t remember.
What I don’t understand is why this judge is conflating the actions of a couple of derelicts with “Bush policies.” The two assholes were tried and punished. The embarrassing saga is over. Why dig it up if not to inflame further the camel humping assholes of Daesh, who are just looking for an excuse to lose their shit again?
Why? Politics. The Democraps need something to deflect the attention from Queen Hillary’s latest woes. Election 2016 is starting earnest…
nbcguy54ACTUAL…Even though they’re beating a dead horse, Bush has been gone forever now, to the dumb ass Democrats this still looks like cannon fodder for the 2016 elections, regardless of the fact that Bush is long gone and no Republican candidate would even mention his name.
The dummies who made these, to be released videos, should be horse whipped for stupidity alone. The liberal Judge ordering the release, should be flogged with a cat-o-nine tails, each time an American is killed as a result of his decision.
George Bush is gone (not that it stops Obama, Pravda and the rest of the libtards from blaming him) BUT…Jeb will likely run. So this is an ongoing strike against the former and a pre-emptive one against the latter.
The fact it was 10 freaking years ago, a minute subset of morons were involved and have been punished, AND it can only serve to endanger innocent soldiers currently in harm’s way is entirely irrelevant to the “cause”.
nbcguy: that was my first thought. They know the odds of getting a Dem into the White House next election are minimal if the Reps field an even halfway credible candidate (which isn’t going to be nearly as hard for the Reps as for the Dems!) so they are trying to control the political and media climate.
Too bad they’re trying to effect climate control (their much vaunted goal) by adding emissions instead of taking their own advice and reducing ’em…
Ain’t’cha been paying attention, Nicki? The Glorious Leader is looking bad because he dicked the dog on a colossal scale and everyone knows it, so he wants to dig up a long-since-settled, decade-old scandal that was overblown in the first place so that he can blame Bush. Again. Even if Bush had as much actual involvement in said scandal as Carrol O’Connor had in the Apollo Moon landings.
In the long run, it just demonstrates that excessive stupidity (like two dipshits taking pictures of naked prisoners) is a bit like drunk driving in that it hurts more than just the perpetrators of said stupidity. I always thought those two should’ve been shot just to remove their retardedness from the human gene pool.
Yes, that explain why the Obama administration did nothing in response to the judge’s Feb order (See my comment below for the particulars and decision.)
That’s why I have so much hatred for those two fuckbadgers. They didn’t just screw themselves. The reflected badly on the military as a whole – an organization that is most trusted by the American public in opinion polls year after year after year.
I’d like to put those two through a wall. I remember what a public affairs nightmare that was.
WHO CARES? did they cut heads off? did they murder women and children? did they cut off the heads of children? did they burn people alive in cages? did they half bury anyone and stone them to death? did they cruxify anyone.? no..then who GIVES A SHYT WHAT THE [people] WANT? Give to them what they give to others and we will be done with this race of vermin imho!
Good grief! If the government couldn’t show why this would be a bad idea, I wouldn’t want them on my debate team! Now, if the judge wouldn’t see, that’s a horse of a different color.
I doubt this was the government’s fault. I put this on the judge. If he already had a “hate Bush” agenda, there was nothing the government could show that would sway him.
How many trials do they want to hold before they decide that they finally have the correct verdict?
Before the judge becomes the target of anyone’s wrath, consider these items. First, by way of background, Hellerstein is a Veteran, a former JAG. Second, we are pretty much at the mercy of media on these things. What they say is what we get. A link to the judge’s brief decision is below and it’s worth a read because, in it, he clearly says that the
“Government declined to file any further submissions in response to the
February 18th Order…[and]…its refusal to issue individual certifications[…]cannot exempt the government from responding to Plaintiff’s FOIA requests.”
So, the government—that would be the Obama administration—did NOTHING in response to the judge’s February order and, consequently, the judge had no alternative but to order that the government comply with the FOIA request. Despite the administration’s doing nothing (and it apparently did not request an extension of the court) the judge has delayed the implementation of his decision to allow the government time to appeal, if it wants to do so. (Do not hold your breath!) I should point out that the law puts the onus on the government to establish why a particular piece of information requested under the FOIA should not be released. The judge cannot unilaterally make this determination without evidence and argument from the government. For my money, B. Hussein Obama and Co. dropped the ball before it crossed the goal line and the ref made the only call he could. The decision: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/abuse_photos_foia_order.pdf
So they tried to just ignore the law again, huh? This is my shocked face.
The Obama administration did not “drop the ball” on this. They want the photos released, to get exactly the predicted reaction. The Obama cares as much about dead and injured American soldiers as it cares about dead Mexicans.
This is an American administration run by socialists: harm to individuals is justifiable by the greater good, any greater good, including an ephemeral political advantage.
I termed it dropping the ball. Perhaps I should have said that the administration intentionally dropped the ball. We are actually in agreement, val.
Threw the ball away, found the ball, then buried it, ate the ball, painted naughty pictures on the ball signed it GW Bush and gave it to the judge, and so forth.
2/17 Air Cav…Thank you. Though I don’t care for the Judge’s decision I can see where his hands were tied, absent descent from the Obama Admin. The same Admin who manages to operate under “agencies”, which are now exempt from FOIA discovery.
This is a win-win for the administration – they stonewall the release as long as possible, then when they are forced to release they can wail “the ACLU forced it”. The release is ever closer to the elections in which they can say “see the evil stuff that occurred under that Republican Bush?” Politically, they have to be loving this – there is almost no potential downside for them. Oh, other than maybe a strengthened enemy and some servicemembers killed, but what’s that?
…now those guys still deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq can pay for the mistakes of Lynndie England and Charles Graner.
Not “mistakes.” “Crimes.” (Which is why they were being court-martialed for them, as you rightly point out, before the photos went public.)
BINGO.
Graner’s parole ended this past December. Sorry, but I don’t think the punishment was nearly severe enough for that POS.
Here’s something else I just remembered. The Australian media released some of the really bad Abu Ghraib photos in 2006 that weren’t released initially. I can’t remember now whether they released all the photos, but they released some of the really bad ones I had on that CD. So the photos were already out there.
Unless, the judge has ordered the release of the incredibly pornographic ones, in which case, he’s one sick fuck.
Nicki: I don’t know what your beef is with the judge. The gov’t was given the opportunity to make it’s case for each photo and didn’t do so. The FOIA is law and, absent the gov’t’s specific reason for withholding a photo from release, what would you have had the judge do? He did what he could, in my view, and went the extra yard by delaying the implementation of his decision for two months to allow an appeal of it.
Well… I have several beefs with the judge (granted, I didn’t read the actual court transcripts, so some of them are based on conjecture).
1 – I know what was initially released, and the subsequent media releases in 2006 IIRC released photos and videos that were even worse. Why allow the release of the nasty porn and other types of photos nine years after Salon and Australian media fomented the fire once again by releasing some of the worse photos.
2 – The people involved were punished for their actions. What is the purpose of releasing said media yet again, especially with the extremists increasing their acts of terror worldwide? If this judge was smart, he would balance the “need to know” (or ACLU’s aching need to see the Graner/England pr0n for some ridiculous reason) with legitimate national security concerns. Even if the government arguments were borderline retarded, which I kind of doubt, but OK… I’ll make an allowance, the implications aren’t difficult to see.
3 – It is not difficult to assess based on the above that this judge had a political agenda. There’s absolutely no reason to order the release of the worst of the lot. The really bad ones were already released by the media back in 2006. So why?
That’s my problem with the judge. I’m not discounting the possibility that the government’s lawyers were incompetent enough to lose this case, but given the extremists’ reactions to Charlie Hebdo, the Danish magazine cartoons, etc. I can’t imagine anyone can’t see how this endangers US personnel.
Nicki, in this case it makes no difference whether the judge has an ideological agenda or not. The law is pretty clear: absent a recognized exception, the government is generally required to release information pursuant to a FOIA request. The fact that the information is embarrassing to the US govt is not a recognized exception.
The government had an opportunity to make the case for withholding some or all of the photos in question, or to explain why they qualified for an exception to public release. The law provided the mechanism for the government to do that on national security grounds, or to argue that some of the photos should be withheld on other grounds (e.g., unnecessary violation of the privacy rights of those in the pictures). The government apparently didn’t make any attempt to do so after the original “we won’t release anything” was challenged by the ACLU. We can only speculate as to why this Administration chose to do that.
For the record: count me among those that think that failure was both intentional and based on politics.
Hondo, I understand the law, and given the fact that Congress passed a law allowing the Secretary of Defense to withhold photographs by certifying their release would endanger U.S. citizens, and given the fact that The judge’s most recent order said the additional evidence had “failed to change his decision,” seriously… what other fucking evidence did he need?
As I understand it, the judge’s most recent order said that new information had “failed to change his decision” because DoD didn’t provide anything else after his first decision. The judge apparently outlined what he expected for withholding any of the individual photographs. DoD apparently has known for nearly 7 months that the original “blanket” certification was unacceptable, and what was required by law. And they chose to provide squat.
“…because DoD didn’t provide anything else after his first decision.” — I didn’t get that, but maybe I’m not reading closely enough, because I’m distracted by about 10 different other things.
Nonetheless, given everything that’s going on in the world today, I don’t see how the judge could have come to any other conclusion than this does endanger the lives of US personnel.
Nicki, read the judge’s decision that 2/17 Air Cav linked above. Unlike many, it’s short – about 2 1/2 pages, double-spaced text.
OMG – do you know how long it took me to find that damn link? I don’t know if it was my eyes, or just the color scheme on this computer, but I literally spent forever trying to find it. WTF!
My thing is even if the government provided no additional evidence, how could one possibly have found the prior certification inadequate? Now, I haven’t seen the certification, so I suppose it could be just a paper with some crayon smears on it, but I have to wonder how this judge cannot see this as being an issue for the security of US personnel?
And again, why in the everloving fuck would the ACLU demand the release of this shit, given how much damning evidence has already been released, how much time has passed, and the fact that those involved were already tried and punished?
The judge cannot take judicial notice of the result or ramifications of a release of information. The government must make the case. The judge gave the government–the Obama administration–the opportunity to do so and it elected not to do so. I can’t fault the judge and, believe you me, I would not hesitate to do so if I thought he deserved it.
Oh, and BTW – I hope no one takes my comments as somehow pro- or anti- this particular administration.
I just can’t imagine any judge thinking that this is a great idea – back in 2009 when the original decision was issued, or now.
And a big, fat middle finger to the ACLU too. Why the flying, everloving fuck would they want to resurrect this shit???
Indeed. That is THE question. Were they acting out of the interests of justice or doing their boy’s bidding? This is the same org that wants to prescribe how to prevent cops from shooting hundreds of disabled people every year. Hundreds? Yes. It’s on the ACLU website right now. So, I checked their source and it’s one big circle jerk that leads right back to the article’s author, a defense atty. It turns out that more than half of the claimed but unevidenced shootings were of those with psychiatric disabilities, not physical ones. So, a nut unhinges, pulls a knife or a gun, is shot bu police, and voila! that’s a victim of a police shooting. The ACLU sucks the big one.
Lars is gonna love this. Fuck the ACLU. Bunch of worthless pussies. There is no reason to resurrect this shit, but to cause problems. Assholes. They don’t care about Americans or civil liberties.
In honesty I think they do care about civil liberties, but to such a warped and extreme degree that they have become to a degree religious fanatics on the subject, and are willing to sacrifice almost anyone on that altar. Comparison: like someone who is in love to such a degree that they become obsessed with porn as an expression of it…
“help the public better understand the implications of some of the Bush administration’s policies.”
Translation:
“help further piss off our determined enemy …”
BUT,, the administration refuses to release the pics of OBLs body because it would ” cause unnecessary violence”…
RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!
Damn good point. The administration fought release of the photos of OBL taken after his unannounced visit from SEAL Team 6 for two reasons:
1)to prevent the killing of Americans and violence against American interests; and
2)that images could be classified simply because their disclosure would facilitate anti-American propaganda.
The court, in siding with the gov’t, never addressed #2 b/c #1 was enough to preclude disclosure. And, no, it wasn’t the ACLU which sued for the photos. It was Judicial Watch.