US gov't hiding more prisoner abuse photos

U.S. government opposes release of prisoner abuse photos
Last Updated: Friday, November 7, 2008
The Associated Press

The U.S. government has asked a federal appeals court to reconsider its order to release 21 pictures of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, saying it could jeopardize the safety of U.S. troops.

Government lawyers said in papers made public Friday that the issue was of "exceptional importance."

In September, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the United States to give the pictures to the American Civil Liberties Union. Now the government has asked all 12 judges on the court to hear its case.

In the court papers, the government said release of the pictures would pose a grave risk of inciting violence and riots against American troops and coalition forces.

The government said its chief objection to the ruling was the finding that it had to be specific about the potential threat.

Nevertheless, it was prepared to prove that release of the photos could endanger soldiers' lives, the government said.

Amrit Singh, staff attorney with the ACLU, said the government was engaged in a delay tactic to evade its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act.

"These photographs are of critical importance in trying to bring to light the scope and scale of prisoner abuse," she said.

Singh said the pictures were significant because they were taken at locations in Afghanistan and Iraq other than the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. They proved the government was wrong when it said the abuse at Abu Ghraib was an isolated event, she said.

The Abu Ghraib photographs sparked international outrage because they graphically depicted American troops abusing and sexually humiliating inmates. One picture showed a naked, hooded prisoner on a box with wires fastened to his hands and genitals.

War is hell.....do you think that the vietnamese went by the geneva convention?? or the talaban?? or the radical insurgents in Iraq?? They can get away with showing somebody being beheaded on live television, they can get away with stoning a woman to death simply because she looked at another man....

maybe the ACLU and all those other sniveling liberals should actually *SERVE* in the military and learn first hand what war is all about.

dear steve,

how are you? i am fine

i don't get it...are you suggesting that the US government should adopt the same ethics as the islamic fundamentalist dictators and radical islamic terrorists? wouldn't that make the US government the terrorists?

your friend,
snivelling liberal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maladroit

dear steve,

how are you? i am fine

i don't get it...are you suggesting that the US government should adopt the same ethics as the islamic fundamentalist dictators and radical islamic terrorists? wouldn't that make the US government the terrorists?

your friend,
snivelling liberal

---

Not what I am suggesting at all..... What I am saying is that the ethics question should not be directed at the US, but at the islamic fundamentalist dictators and radical islamic terrorists, and other countries that have no problem with committing attrocities against their POWs and their own populace.

Or are you suggesting that its OK for them to continue to persecute prisoners and murder innocent civilians with impunity.

Before you answer that, remember that the prisors in GITMO are PRISONERS OF WAR.... Its not like they are in jail for robbing a convience store. Also remember what was happening when they were captured and imprisoned....or have you forgotten that THEY declared war on the US the *first time* they tried to blow up the trade center and failed, then succeded on 9-11.

"What I am saying is that the ethics question should not be directed at the US, but at the islamic fundamentalist dictators and radical islamic terrorists, and other countries"

- why would the AMERICAN civil liberties union direct questions at foreign governments?



"are you suggesting that its OK for them to continue to persecute prisoners and murder innocent civilians with impunity. "

- of course i don't want anyone to torture...unlike you, i don't dismiss the people that do object to torture by suggesting they be sent off to war...snivelling liberals you condemn for objecting to US torturerers also object to foreign torturers:
Saudi Arabia Human Rights | Reports, News Articles & Campaigns | Amnesty International



"the prisors in GITMO are PRISONERS OF WAR"

- according to the us gov't, the detainees at gitmo are NOT prisoners of war...if they were, they would be protected by the geneva conventions...that is why the us gov't redefined them as 'unlawful combatants'...judging by the number of detainees released so far, it's likely that many if not most of them are innocent...after 6 years, only two people have been formally found guilty of anything at gitmo - bin laden's chauffeur, and bin laden's propagandist (and they didn't kill anyone)...gitmo and the trials are a travesty of justice, and better suited to an islamic dictatorship than a nation that is supposedly based on human rights and the rule of law...thankfully, closing gitmo is at the top of obama's to-do list



"As I understand it, technically unlawful combatants do not have any rights under the Geneva Convention."
- Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, January 2002