Rageneau
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-16-06 10:56 AM
Original message |
Whatever happened to those torture photos the judges ordered released? |
|
Months ago, a federal judge ruled that our corrupt administration had to release a whole new bunch of torture photos that were supposed to be worse than any we've seen.
So how come they haven't been released? Have the Republicans decided that the rule of law only applies to BJs given to Democrats?
How come the Bush Administration gets away with breaking the law, defying court orders and violating national security, and not one conservative sees a thing wrong with that?
Because conservative Republicans are not good Americans, that's why.
|
Lerkfish
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-16-06 10:58 AM
Response to Original message |
1. you answer your own question ably, no need for me to comment. |
Vickers
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-16-06 10:59 AM
Response to Original message |
2. Photos, what photos OMIGAWD a missing white woman!!!! |
The Backlash Cometh
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-16-06 10:59 AM
Response to Original message |
3. Hmmm...those pictures are Bush's Achille's Heel. |
|
Surely that's all it would take to bring on an impeachment? Unless Alito gets voted in as the next Supreme Court and anarchy will be the soup du jour.
|
JeffR
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-16-06 11:00 AM
Response to Original message |
4. Republicans decided that the rule of law only applies to BJs... |
DrDebug
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-16-06 11:01 AM
Response to Original message |
5. What pictures? Now move on there's nothing to see n/t |
leftofthedial
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-16-06 11:23 AM
Response to Original message |
6. they released them to the NYT |
|
we should see them in 2009, well into Jeb's first term
|
Sarah Ibarruri
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-16-06 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
leftofthedial
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-16-06 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
8. The Times sat on knowledge of the illegal wiretaps |
|
since before the 2004 election cycle
|
Sarah Ibarruri
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-16-06 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
9. Oh I see. You're saying the media is scared to publish the pics |
|
At least I think that's what you're saying. You know, the media is not owned by us. The media is owned by the enemy of the people. I hate to sound so trite, but hey, it's true. The media has only its advertisers in mind when it publishes news. So if we find out whom the pics were released to, why don't we boycott the advertisers of the media in question till they publish them? Or do we have no idea whom they were released to, or if they were even ever released?
|
leftofthedial
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-16-06 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
10. we have no idea if or to whom they were released |
|
other than being pretty sure that they haven't been released
|
LittleClarkie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-16-06 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
|
I was starting to lose hope.
|
leftofthedial
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-16-06 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
16. yo! the NYT comment was serious |
|
not to the point, but serious, nonetheless
If they are ever "made public," what exactly does that mean. To whom are they released?
|
LittleClarkie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-16-06 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
17. Actually, I meant you in general |
|
Most of the thread when I first looked at it was riffing on the whole thing. Seemed in somwhat poor taste if the person in question was looking for actual info rather than a quip.
So thanks for the info!
|
Sarah Ibarruri
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-16-06 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
15. How do we find out more about where these pics are? nt |
donkeyotay
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-16-06 03:27 PM
Response to Original message |
11. The ACLU's website has been less than helpful in following this |
|
but presumably there is another appeal or something like that. Someone might pop in and give you the official reason why the administration remains unaccountable. At this point I assume they will remain so.
|
Javaman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-16-06 03:51 PM
Response to Original message |
12. Gone with the wind, my friend, gone with the wind...n/t |
AtomicKitten
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-16-06 08:27 PM
Response to Original message |
14. tied up in court, just like Cheney did with the Energy Commission records |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri May 10th 2024, 10:41 PM
Response to Original message |