N.Y. judge hesitant on Abu Ghraib photos

ap on Bakersfield Californian ^ | 8/30/05 | Larry Neumeister - ap

[NormsRevenge]

ACLU lawyer Amrit Singh argued that release of the pictures was necessary for the public to assess the scope of the abuse and whether it could have been carried out without the knowledge of military leaders.

---

Who cares how many die as a result of the release?

Obviously, the ACLU could care less about that factor.

[saquin]

Unfortunately, I fear his voiced "concerns" are just a preemptive attempt to make it appear he agonized over the decision... before he makes the expected decision to release them.

[digger48]

Is anyone else troubled by the fact that this National Security decision is being made by a single 'judge'?

[saquin]

The ACLU contends prisoner abuse is systemic.

What a bogus argument. These photos don't address that question at all, since they are the same batch of photos taken by the same group of soldiers 2 years ago. So how do they address the argument of "systemic" abuse? They don't.

[eddie willers]

Plenty of time after the war is won.

Sounds like the judge will do the right thing and sit on them.

[hombre_sincero]

I have some videos of the muslim terrorist pigs slicing off the heads of LIVE civilian prisoner slowly with the full sounds of the wheezing as blood fills the lungs as the body continues to breathe!

I have picture of LIVE American civilians falling to their deaths from the top of burning buildings! crushing into puddles of gore.

I have a suggestion for this judge and the scumbag America-hating lawyers ... unfortunately we cannot say that here.

[FlingWingFlyer]

I can't speak for anti-American DemocRATS and ACLU sexual deviants but I think we normal people have seen enough. Anything else is overkill. The people who committed these "atrocities" (ROTFL) have been or are already being punished.

[saquin]

The judge said he recognized the pictures might be useful to the public as it answers questions about the prison scandal, including whether those in command knew about the abuse and how extensive it was.

I'd really love to know how these photos would be useful to the public in showing what the command knew and how extensive the abuse was. Those are the two questions he claims the release of the photos would address. Unless there's a commander standing in the frame of the photos, they don't address the question of command knowledge. And since these are simply more photos taken from the exact same batch turned over last year that led to prosecutions, they were taken during a limited time period in the Fall of 2003 by a small number of soldiers. How do they prove "how extensive it was"?

[NormsRevenge]

Judge Alvin Hellerstein
Clinton appointee,, 1998

[saquin]

I have some videos of the muslim terrorist pigs slicing off the heads of LIVE civilian prisoner slowly with the full sounds of the wheezing as blood fills the lungs as the body continues to breathe!

I have picture of LIVE American civilians falling to their deaths from the top of burning buildings! crushing into puddles of gore.

Well, the media doesn't feel the American public has a need to see those, y'know, because it might upset us and maybe even cause us to riot and shout "Death to Terrorists". Wouldn't want that.

[msnimje]

The ACLU WANTS people to die because of these pictures. The loss of human life is fine with them as long as it makes the President and the US look bad.

[planekT]

Judge Alvin Hellerstein Clinton appointee,, 1998

Oh $hit...

[Cicero]

This judge is to be commended for showing a little common sense. I hope he cuts the ACLU off at the knees.

[digger48]

Judge Alvin Hellerstein Clinton appointee,, 1998

That makes me feel sooooo much better

[Kryptonite]

"A judge cannot look at these without thinking to himself how . . . easily they could be subverted to create a false picture of this country," he said.

I'm with ya so far, judge.

[pierrem15]

ditto: the photo's are DOD property, and the President should tell the judge to kiss-off.

[weegee]

Seeing the photos does NOTHING to determine how widespread it was.

Since one of the soldiers leaked the images initially, how are we to know that one was not a provocateur for agitprop purposes?

Sound off? Why would a solider throw his "career away"? Why did Sgt. Akbar do the same when he murdered several of his fellow officers and injured a dozen more?

Why did someone in the British Army stage some hoaxed photos for a newspaper (including a shot of a soldier urinating on a "prisoner")?

Not saying that the images from Abu Ghraib were faked, just wondering what prompted some of the action.

What went on there under our military was MINOR compared to the abuses that went on their regularly under Saddam, despite was Ted The Swimmer says. Men had their hands cut off, women were disemboweled in front of their husbands. This is a country that had rape rooms. Just what sort of men operated those torture rooms and who did they fight for? Where did they end up after the war?

"Oh Jack, you came down too hard on that Nazi when you took a picture of him with panties on his head."

[digger48]

Pull a Clintonesque tactic.

Open an investigation, and refuse all questions and requests due to 'ongoing' investigation.

[saquin]

The ACLU WANTS people to die because of these pictures. The loss of human life is fine with them as long as it makes the President and the US look bad.

Bingo! We have a winner.

These pictures do not assist at all in understanding the command structure, the military orders or the extensiveness of abuse. If the ACLU simply wanted that information, it would be more likely to be found in the thousands of pages of documents that they have already received through the Freedom of Information Act. Their insistence on the release of these additional photos is simply to leverage their prurient shock value to revive the scandal and embarrass the administration again. If our troops on the ground, who had nothing to do with these 2 year old events, are harmed in the process the ACLU doesn't care. In fact, they would love for riots and violence to ensue so they can point and say "see what this Bush-sanctioned abuse has caused..."

And they will probably get this judge to play right along with their cynical game.