Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
DETAINEE PHOTO UPDATE.
Last week, The Telegraph reported that General Antonio Taguba believed the Obama administration was witholding the photos of detainee abuse at the center of a FOIA lawsuit filed by the ACLU because they contained sexual abuse. Taguba clarified to Salon on Friday that the photos he referred to, which showed the sexual abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, had already been released years ago. He said he had not seen the photos the ACLU is requesting. Scott Horton of the Daily Beast initially confirmed The Telegraph's account, but has since corrected his story.
McClatchy reports that part of the reason the photos were withheld was because of pressure from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of Iraq, who was concerned that outrage from the photos would provoke violence and jeopardize the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. While the president had previously said that releasing the photos would put American troops abroad in danger, McClatchy is the first to report that Prime Minister Maliki had any influence on the decision.
Yesterday Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg extended the government's deadline to file a possible appeal to prevent the release of the photographs. The ACLU sent a a letter, signed by more than a dozen human rights groups, calling on President Obama to release the photos. "The public has an undeniable right to see these photos. As disturbing as they may be, it is critical that the American people know the full truth about the abuse that occurred in their name," ACLU staff attorney Amrit Singh said in a statement. "The government's decision to suppress the photos is fundamentally inconsistent with President Obama's own promise of transparency and accountability."
In the meantime, Senators Joe Lieberman and Lindsay Graham have proposed a bill that would allow the government to avoid releasing any "photograph taken between September 11, 2001 and January 22, 2009 relating to the treatment of individuals engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States in operations outside of the United States."
That grants the administration a shockingly high level of secrecy. Even if one believes that the timing for releasing the photos in question is poor, the idea that the government can pass laws limiting public access to information related to government lawbreaking is troubling.
-- A. Serwer
COMMENTS (10)
How is this change anyone can believe in? When the powerful break the law, congress passes laws to pat them on the back for it.
Great job liberals. I guess you all acted like you didn't believe in anyone for the last 30 years because you do not, in fact, believe in anything.
Posted by: soullite | June 2, 2009 10:32 AM
Uh, soullite, it's a *proposed* bill, and Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham are not exactly left-wing heros.
Posted by: Ben Rosengart | June 2, 2009 11:25 AM
Bwn, it's already passed the senate, and everyone expects it to pass the house. You're merely splitting hairs.
This passed unanimously. It's as good as set. I'm just trying to figure out if you're a moron or a paid shill.
Posted by: soullite | June 2, 2009 11:52 AM
soullite
Given that the bill is named after 2/3rds of the 3 amigos, who were we (liberals doing a great job) to vote for??
Unanimously includes every single senator( liberal,conservative, moderate,)?
I'm upset. I believe in the Constitution.
Who would you say to support in this issue?
Posted by: red | June 2, 2009 1:10 PM
Red, I don't know. I don't really think we're doing a great job at all. If we were, this wouldn't be happening.
I'm going to vote third party. Even nader, if I have to. It pains me to admit it, but he was right. He's an arrogant jack-ass, but he was still right. We've taken the easy way out too long, acting as if the only way to win the war is to win every single battle. Sometimes you have to lose to win, and sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better. Obama has to lose in 2012, because if he doesn't, then everything Bush and him have done get set in stone. I don't like telling other people what to do. I prefer to hold them accountable for their words and deeds. You'll have to decide for yourself what you're going to do. There is nobody to support. The game is clearly rigged, and I'm starting to wonder if this is actually even a Democracy.
Posted by: soullite522 | June 2, 2009 3:55 PM
soullite,
When and if a 3rd party becomes more of a feasible reality, we won't be the only ones. However, Nader will be 78 in 3yrs. And others have been right about many issues( gravel, paul, kucinich), yet no one( me included ) sees those options as achievable avenues of change. This seems more logical( slow as shit though)."Sometimes you have to lose to win, and sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better."
That i can totally, currently relate to.
How do we get these pictures out, and how do we get truth commission/investigations going??
I now know that being well-informed can help keep journo's and bloggers(even ones that i'm a fan of)on their toes.
How do we do that with politicians???
Posted by: red | June 2, 2009 4:17 PM
"That grants the administration a shockingly high level of secrecy. Even if one believes that the timing for releasing the photos in question is poor, the idea that the government can pass laws limiting public access to information related to government lawbreaking is troubling."
I am neither shocked nor troubled. There is a definite public interest in releasing information in the form of facts. But a photograph contributes little outside of sensationalism. I doubt whether any of the photos carry scientific or artistic merit that cannot be conveyed in words.
Posted by: Measure for Measure | June 2, 2009 6:26 PM
Nader was just used as a placeholder. 78 or not, he'll likely still run. Anyone percieved to be to Obamas left will do. The idea isn't to make a 3rd party viable, that can only happen in this system when a party dies. The idea is to force Democrats to lose so often that they have no choice but to come crawling to us. This 'more and better Democrats' BS has now failed. It's time to move on to plan B.
Someone clearly wants these photos out there. I don't think you have to do anything, Obama's inaction will force their hand.
Posted by: soullite | June 2, 2009 7:36 PM
Measure, can you really not understand this? It's actually not that difficult: Obama clearly doesn't want to prosecute these people.
Pictures of rape and murder will force him to prosecute the guilty. These people can not be allowed to return to their normal lives. They will become cops. They will become teachers. They will do this to Americans. Do you really want to live in a country where the police rape suspects to 'get the truth?'. Our police forces are alreayd brutal enough, the last thing we need to do is turn them into a haven for rapists and murderers.
The question is, are you even serious? This isn't a difficult question to puzzle out. Spend three minutes on it and you'll have your answer. Do you really lack the intelligence to figure this out, or do you just not want to see it?
The way I see it, the Senate care more about immunizing rapists than protecting your children from them.
Posted by: soullite | June 2, 2009 7:41 PM
Seriously, you want to pretend that words carry the same weight images do? Thats flies in the faces of everything human beings accept. The term 'a picture is worth a thousands words' didn't spring up from nowhere.
Words can be skipped over, ignored, pushed to the back of the mind. Images can not be unseen. If you see an image, even for a second, you mind will piece it together. Looking away won't help. You'll never forget.
Nobody can be stupid enough not to know that, it's something every sighted human being knows. You're being dishonest, the only question is if you're being dishonest to us, or yourself?
Posted by: soullite | June 2, 2009 7:47 PM