jim3775
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-20-05 09:26 PM
Original message |
Important question about new Abu Ghraib photos |
|
Is there a possibility that the government could release redacted photos? I just keep thinking back to the 28 pages redacted in the 9/11 report, maybe we will just get a bunch of blacked out images. If the judge left it up to the govt.'s discretion to edit the photos for sexual content what’s to stop them from removing everything?
|
dsc
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-20-05 09:30 PM
Response to Original message |
1. The judge would get to see both the editted and the uneditted photos. |
jim3775
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-20-05 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. Im sure the judge already has... |
|
but that doesn’t rule out the possibility of my suggestion.
|
dsc
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-21-05 06:18 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
If they try what you are suggesting the judge will hold them in contempt.
|
wli
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-20-05 09:36 PM
Response to Original message |
3. there's supposedly a gang rape of a preteen boy in there |
|
So it's actually unclear whether it's legal to distribute it.
|
stevedeshazer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-20-05 09:37 PM
Response to Original message |
4. I have an important question about them, too! |
|
WHERE THE HELL ARE THEY?!
But, to answer your question, nothing these guys do would surprise me. If they managed to black them out, well, they've been keeping them out of the light for at least two years as it is already, so why not redact stuff for "national security" purposes as well?
It's all part of the stonewalling by the Radical Right. They'd lie to their own God to keep in power. Oh, wait...
|
babylonsister
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-20-05 09:38 PM
Response to Original message |
5. I think the delay on getting these pictures and video |
|
out was due to the redacting going on, to 'protect the innocent.' :eyes: That's what I recall reading...
|
steve2470
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-20-05 09:44 PM
Response to Original message |
6. From what I remember, the judge in the case was allowing the |
|
government to redact the photos to exclude certain information, which I forget the exact nature was. So, after X number of weeks, they were supposed to be ready to be released.
|
EST
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-20-05 09:49 PM
Response to Original message |
7. Months ago, the judge in question stated that the |
|
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 09:51 PM by EST
additional photos would be redacted, at least as far as faces and any identifying marks are concerned. If they are ever released, they will not include the very worst - again according to the judge - and I seem to recall that the release was predicated on some other circumstances and may not happen at all. In other words, it probably won't happen at all.
|
napi21
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-20-05 09:54 PM
Response to Original message |
8. I don't that's in the judges order! |
|
I'm sure they'd love to, but I don't think the judge would allow that. Fortunately, there's a judge involved this time. Last time the WH made their own decisions!
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 09:31 AM
Response to Original message |