Want some good news? "Redacted" Govt Arguments to be released-Abu Ghraib

[Warren DeMontague]

(bold added)

Update in ACLU Torture FOIA Lawsuit

August 19, 2005

Contact: [e-mail]

Following a two-hour closed hearing in New York on August 15, a federal judge ordered the government to reveal blacked-out portions of its legal papers arguing against the release of images depicting abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib. The government has told the court it will not appeal the decision and will release the documents in their entirety sometime next week.

The court will next hear arguments on August 30 to determine whether the Defense Department must release 87 photographs and four videos depicting abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib. After unsuccessfully invoking the Geneva Conventions to block the release of the images, the government is now citing a legal 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."

In a friend-of-the-court brief submitted in the case, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and several media outlets and associations, including CBS Broadcasting, NBC Universal, The Hearst Corporation, The New York Times Co. and the American Society of Newspaper Editors, object to "the government's misdirected effort to undermine the by asserting, in essence, that its own misconduct has created an indictment too damning for the public to see." Read the brief at http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/legal/amicus080305.pdf.

Okay, so, why is this important? After all, these aren't the images or videos- they're just the arguments the government filed last month to claim a last-minute 7(F) exemption to the FOIA.

...A few reasons. One, it indicates to me that the Government has started to realize that the endless series of delays and other legal shennanigans it has been employing for two years, now, in this case is starting to draw in people's attention. 14 Media Groups signed the amicus brief a couple weeks ago supporting the release of the images- this, after last year (before the election) the media wouldn't even touch the story.

Two, it means that they will supposedly release the full text of the arguments, the ones with page after page "blanked out"-- so, big deal, right? Well, we'll see. One has to wonder just what was so incendiary in those arguments that they took the highly unusual step of trying to keep them secret in the first place.

We'll know this week, unless they pull something else (which they might, you never know). But the fact that they didn't appeal the release when they could have is pretty damn surprising, considering the overall track record with this case.

[jsamuel]

1. keep kicked

[Hailtothechimp]

2. Releasing them "sometime next week" = 5:30 PM on Friday

We all know how this drill works.

[Warren DeMontague]

4. Actually, in this case, the game has been to ask for a delay

and then file a new argument when the delay runs out.

Even if they come out in the Friday PM News Dump, it'll still be a huge improvement; in that they came out at ALL.

[annabanana]

20. note that this the PICTURES they're talking about...

This is about releasing the sealed arguments about why they shouldn't release the pictures that's due out this week.

The ruling on the pictures themselves is, I think, set for the 31st.

[DBoon]

3. this is very important!

nt

[truebrit71]

5. Very interesting indeed...

..methinks that there are more than a few more tricks up their sleeves yet...the sooner we get the Plame indictments the better...then they'll HAVE to release the pictures and videos...

Oh, and that new argument is horseshit...if the faces of the abusers and rapists are covered up or otherwise altered, how can they argue that releasing them "could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual"?

Eventually they will come out, and then the brown and smellies will definitely make contact with the rotary oscillators....

[starroute]

7. It's not the abusers they're claiming to protect

Their argument has apparently been that the release of the photos would cause riots or other forms of violence in which some indeterminate person, somewhere might get hurt.

They've even brought in their chief expert on Arab culture to argue how volatile and easily inflamed the Iraqis are. (That's apparently what's in the redacted parts.)

Of course, on that basis, you could argue for covering up police brutality that might incite inner city riots. Or for blacking out all news about Jack Abramoff on the grounds that it might cause an anti-Semitic incident somewhere or other. Or . . . well, you get the idea.

The law was originally meant to protect people who testify against the mob and that sort of thing. Judges don't generally go for bending the law out of shape quite that severely. But they can probably keep appealing this one up to the Supreme Court -- which, as we all know, is quite prepared to make special exceptions where Bushes are concerned.

We shall see.

[Imagevision]

23. Correction> some top brass may be depicted - thats they're concern!

[Warren DeMontague]

8. I think the new argument boils down to "If we release them, people will

get pissed".

But, then, wouldn't that pretty much render the FOIA meaningless? I mean, if the government doesn't have to release anything that might embarass them or piss someone else off, that's a pretty big exemption.

[napi21]

6. I think they've really pissed off the judge!

I think he's getting real tired of all the delay motions and tricks they've pulled and he's going to enforce his decisions NOW!

I suspect you're right about the Friday Dump. That's OK, lots of people pay attention on weekends too! If they don'pt, WE will make sure it stays alive.

[lala_rawraw]

9. Yep, because they ran out of options with the paragraph f of FOIA

They had twisted it to the point of insanity and the judge was losing cool. Now we will get to see, as I am sure it will show, that what the government was redacting was bullshit.

[wli]

10. they're actually being rather stupid about their arguments

They could easily win the case by claiming it qualifies as kiddie porn and snuff films, though I suppose that would still make it available to law enforcement.

[Warren DeMontague]

11. That would be a pretty damning admission

as to what's actually in there.

[wli]

13. It's already known, though. Hersch already said it.

So it wouldn't really say anything that isn't already widely known.

[Warren DeMontague]

15. It's not widely known, actually.

And it's even less widely believed.

[wli]

16. that's sort of shocking

The cloud grows darker still, as usual. The MSM blackout has few outside DU etc. with the vaguest notion of what the Hell is going on.

More proof the MSM should be prosecuted en masse for Julius Streicher -like charges.

[shraby]

12. This is the part that gets me....

"compiled for law enforcement purposes,"

They could never convince me that they were compiled for law enforcement purposes...especially in light of the fact that they didn't even know they were filmed/photographed until Darby turned them in.

[Nothing Without Hope]

14. This is good news all right. The suspense is just going to build,

and as you point out, some big media names are weighing in at last. Thanks!

[Judi Lynn]

17. A "here's hoping" kick.

:kick: :kick: :kick:

[DemReadingDU]

18. Thanks for the update!

[Alizaryn]

19. Thanks for the update!

I've been looking since the 18th to find the ruling!

[EnfantTerrible]

21. Thank you for the update...

I've been trying to keep up with this.

[Imagevision]

22. So they release pics/video's and MORE US. troops get killed

too little too late - this satifies those who feel they've scored against the government when the grunts on the ground get blown to bits and pieces?!! either send more troops or get the fuck out!

[LibertyLou]

24. Preparing to go to SCOTUS (again) I Think....

SCOTUS has never allowed secret arguments. Thus, I believe this is just avoiding an immediate slapdown if (when, I think) they run THIS novel FOIA exemption issue (endangering national security if they were to be released) up to the Supremes...

Delay, delay, delay...that's all they are doing...

Consider this the My Lai of Iraq...(and, for those keen on history, it was not an aberrant massacre)...

nor was Abu Ghraib an aberrant few instances...it quite literally may mean the imprisonment of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, and Bush (and many others) for war crimes for setting the systemic policies (extraordinary renditions, torture) that set the stage for this. Keep in mind the US is a signatory to several international treaties on the use of torture. Augusto Pinochet is an example of a leader who can be held accoutable for the crimes of his subordinates if he had reason to be aware of them, and even just tacitly allowed them to happen...
but they just want to delay its impact for a while longer..to stop the further erosion of options besides pullout politically possible for them.

Think back for a minute to 1775...And now imagine that certain pre-revolutionary persons, say Thomas Paine (for writing Common Sense), were tortured, along with his wife and children, and there was existed prima facie evidence of such torture. Now imagine a solicitor arguing before the Crown that releasing such evidence would incite a riot...

Or, how about if the engravings that Paul Revere did of the Boston Massacre in 1770 were declared 'secret' and confiscated? How would history have turned out?

[GreenPartyVoter]

25. This is getting interesting